Apologies for absence were received from Councillors T Adams, D Baker, J Punchard and C Stockton.  There were no substitute Members in attendance.

Mr Patrick Allen made a statement relating to the identification of Small Growth Villages.  He questioned the suggestion that Langham did not achieve the required level of services and facilities for designation as a Small Growth Village as it did not have a village shop or a post office.  He referred to a recent decision by the Development Committee to renege on a Section 106 obligation to facilitate a village shop as part of the development of a hotel complex in the village, despite objections being raised by the Parish Council, on the basis of the hotel owners’ argument that a shop would not be viable and residents used supermarket delivery services instead of village shops.  He did not consider that the sustainability of the village rested on whether or not it had a shop.  Langham was a thriving village with a very popular school, successful pub and thriving village hall, and it would have a prestigious hotel which would create much-needed jobs.  Langham Dome was a facility which no other village had, and i a shop run by volunteers.  He quoted paragraphs 3.11 and 3.12 of the NPPF.  He stated that small villages such as Langham were crying out for small, enhancing developments that would help to keep them alive and prospering.  He urged the Working Party not to abandon Langham as it had much going for it and needed the Council’s support.

The Chairman stated that the policy the Council had to make was set out in the report and it was necessary to have a structure which treated equally all villages of a similar size and resources.  A village had to be sustainable in terms of its services and utilities in order to be sustainable.  He stated that the removal of the shop from the hotel complex was a separate planning issue.  Langham did not meet the criteria for a Small Growth Village.

Mr Allen responded that he disputed the great weight put on a village shop being the only reason a village was sustainable.  He considered that the Council had given planning permission to out of town developments which were not sustainable as people drove into the town to shop, in the same way as people would drive from Langham to visit nearby shops.

The Chairman stated that the due process had been followed with regard to the planning application, which was not a matter for discussion at this meeting.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Working Party held on 10 February 2020.

The minutes of a meeting of the Working Party held on 10 February 2020 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

The Chairman agreed that the Acting Planning Policy Manager would update the Working Party on issues relating to consultations on other Authorities’ Local Plans, the Housing Delivery Test and announcements in the Budget relating to the future of planning under item 8 of the agenda.

Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any of the following items on the agenda.  The Code of Conduct for Members requires that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest.

None.

The Acting Planning Policy Manager presented a report relating to the identification of the final suite of Small Growth Villages under Policy SD3 and the establishment of the overarching approach to the identification and delivery of apportioned growth in Small Growth Villages, including the ratification of the approach through a suite of policies that deliver flexible and exception growth in the rural areas.  The report focused on the broad distribution of growth in relation to rural development, and discussed the options available and recommended modifications to the Draft Plan for inclusion in the submission version.

The Acting Planning Policy Manager stated that paragraph 5.14 should refer to HOU3 and not HOU4 as written.

The Chairman stated that it was important to bear in mind that the Small Growth Villages represented a small percentage in terms of housing delivery.

Councillor N Dixon stated that there were limitations in the current Plan which had resulted in non-delivery of allocated sites in Service Villages and substantially closed down the routes for growth in small villages, which were restricted to exceptions schemes.  With regard to the draft Plan, he considered that the approach and principles in respect of Small Growth Villages were acceptable in the main.  However, he considered that the process was complex and that it needed to be kept as simple as possible so it was easy for communities to understand the best route to achieve their ambitions.  There were also many villages with infrastructure constraints, such as flooding, highways and utilities.  Many of these constraints could only be resolved by funding through development and he was concerned that the proposed policies would not allow it to happen.  He suggested that the proposed policies should allow flexibility for any village to promote sites that would deliver substantial community benefit and/or infrastructure improvement that would raise the level of service provision or solve significant infrastructure constraints.  He considered that there was a need to engage constructively to allow villages to move forward in a measured way which was consistent with the Council’s policies.

The Chairman stated that villages and their Parish Councils could make a case through Neighbourhood Plans and Community Land Trusts.  He asked the Acting Planning Policy Manager to comment.

The Acting Planning Policy Manager explained that the Local Plan was the strategic planning policy for the District and had to be positively prepared, so that the policies were designed to facilitate growth.  The Council’s priority remained the provision of affordable housing and the exceptions policy was the main route to address local housing need in perpetuity in rural villages.  Proposed policy SD2 had been added to the emerging Local Plan and consulted on at Regulation 18 consultation in order to reiterate approaches from national policy which allowed communities to bring forward their own development through community land trusts or neighbourhood planning, and to make it clear that they could take that route if they wished to grow.  Councillor Dixon’s point regarding improved services, improved connectivity and infrastructure could be added.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

With the agreement of the Chairman, the Acting Planning Policy Manager updated the Working Party on the following matters:

Housing Delivery Test

There had been a slight fall in the housing delivery rate, although the Planning Monitoring Officer was confident that completions at the end of the municipal year would be close to the Council’s housing target.  If the delivery rate fell to 95% the Government would require an action plan to show how the Council would maintain the supply of homes.  However, no action was required at the present time.

First Homes Consultation

The Government had issued a consultation paper in respect of a discount of 30% on first homes for local people.  This was being considered in conjunction with the Housing Team and there were concerns regarding funding and the impact on developer contributions and house prices.

Budget Update

The Government proposed to issue a White Paper on “Planning for the Future”.  It was proposed that there would be more deregulation, a review of the local housing need formula, retention of the 300,000 homes target, new rules for more permissive development of high rise, high density development, the requirement for the adoption of local plans by December 2023, further reform of the New Homes Bonus and further tightening of the housing delivery test.  Details were awaited.

There had been a commitment to investment in infrastructure which could open the way for the Council to bid for funding for proposals such as the North Walsham Western Extension.

Consultations from other Authorities

The Council had been consulted in respect of Great Yarmouth and the Greater Norwich Local Plans.  It was not intended to respond as there were no cross-boundary issues.