Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor J Punchard.  There was one substitute Member in attendance.

None.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Working Party held on 12 October 2020.

The Minutes of a meeting of the Working Party held on 12 October 2020 were approved as a correct record.

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.

None.

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.

None.

The Planning Policy Team Leader presented a report relating to draft policies ECN4: Retail and Town Centre Development, and ECN5: Signage and Shopfronts, which summarised the feedback received in response to the Regulation 18 public consultation and the Officer responses, and recommended that Cabinet endorse the policy approaches as set out in the report.

The Chairman asked if it was feasible to extend the Primary Shopping Area (PSA) boundary for Sheringham northwards to include both sides of the High Street, as requested by Sheringham Town Council.

The Planning Policy Team Leader explained that the area in question did not meet the definition of a PSA in national guidance as A1 retail was not concentrated in that area.  However, it was part of the town centre, which meant that retail uses were not precluded per se but it was necessary to first consider areas where there were higher concentrations of A1 use.

Councillor Mrs L Withington stated that there was a growing demand for retail and other types of businesses on the seafront at Sheringham and asked if the policies would be sufficiently flexible to allow them to happen.

The Planning Policy Team Leader explained that the policy was in line with the sequential approach in national policy, and there was a framework in place which could allow such development to happen provided the applicant could demonstrate that the policy requirements could be satisfied. 

Councillor J Rest stated that Fakenham had public transport links but it was misleading to say they were good.  There was no direct bus link to the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital and it was not possible to get to other parts of North Norfolk without changing buses. 

The Planning Policy Team Leader explained that whilst he had referred to good transport links in his presentation, this was in the context that Fakenham was a higher order centre, with bus routes and services that other places did not have.  Higher order centres were places where retail and residential development was concentrated, and the concentration of growth in larger town centres provided a better momentum of growth to improve services.

Councillor P Heinrich stated that he welcomed Policy ECN4 but there was an issue in respect of the future viability of town centres, and retail in particular, following the pandemic with the very fast move to online shopping.  Most of the town centre shops in North Walsham were very small.  They would not be viable for larger retailers and also possibly not for cafes and other leisure orientated uses.  Additional retail would be required when the western extension was developed.  He asked if it was a certainty that sufficient land could be allocated for more modern, larger retail units and if the Vicarage Street car park would be protected for future retail development.

The Planning Policy Team Leader referred to the retail study which indicated that North Walsham had the largest amount of expenditure capacity to support new retail development.  Part of the policy aimed to retain that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

The Senior Planning Officer presented a report relating to draft policies ECN1: Employment Land, ECN2: Employment Areas, Enterprise Zones & Former Airbases and ECN3: Employment Development outside of Employment Areas, which summarised the feedback received in response to the Regulation 18 public consultation and the Officer responses.  He explained that he had made some changes to the ECN1 draft policy since the publication of the agenda in respect of the quantum of land protected for employment and stated that there could be further changes as a result of a further ongoing piece of work on Employment Area boundaries, which was previously agreed by this working party.  The use classes quoted in Policy ECN2 would be amended to be consistent with the latest Use Classes Order.  He recommended that Cabinet endorse the policy approaches as set out in the report.

Councillor N Dixon asked if there was enough choice of employment land sites to meet the differing needs of businesses.   He referred to difficulties experienced by a business in finding a suitable site in Hoveton which could have resulted in the loss of economic activity from the area.  He asked how such problems could be overcome.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that there had been quite substantial changes to the policies from the Core Strategy.  The amount of employment land proposed (62.4 ha.) was substantially greater than that recommended in the Growth Sites Delivery Strategy Study so the amount proposed would allow flexibility and choice across the District over the Plan period.  Policy ECN3 allowed for employment growth outside the designated Employment Areas, which would provide flexibility for the changing nature of the market.  The first part of the Study looked at the market and what was happening in the District.  The second part was a delivery strategy that would look at specific sites and how they could be brought forward. The Study would be brought to the Working Party in due course. 

Councillor Dixon expressed concern that there were no new land allocations in Hoveton.  He stated that it was often the case that a landowner might not be willing to negotiate an acceptable arrangement with a business.  Some businesses that would have located to the District had been lost due to the lack of suitable employment land.   He was not satisfied that enough land had been allocated in the right places to meet future needs, and stated that it was one thing to allocate land but quite another to ensure that it could be delivered when required.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that land could only be allocated if it had been put forward for particular uses.  The strategic needs of the District had been considered and the policies were trying to protect existing employment land and make suitable employment allocations where land was available.  The latest evidence indicated that there would be enough choice and flexibility in each part of the District.  If a business could demonstrate that allocated land was not available, Policy ECN3 would allow it to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

The Senior Planning Officer presented a report relating to draft policies ECN6: New Build Tourist Accommodation, Static Holiday Caravans & Holiday Lodges & Extensions to Existing Sites, ECN7: Use of Land for Touring Caravan & Camping Sites, ECN 8: New-Build & Extensions to Tourist Attractions, and ECN 9: Retaining an adequate supply & mix of Tourist Accommodation, which summarised the feedback received in response to the Regulation 18 public consultation and the Officer responses.  He recommended that Cabinet endorse the policy approaches as set out in the report.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett stated that she welcomed the flexibility in coastal risk areas and the protection and enhancement of the landscape.

Councillor Ms V Gay praised the added support for biodiversity gains in ECN6 and ECN8.  She referred to the failure of the country to meet the UN biodiversity targets.

Councillor H Blathwayt expressed concern in respect of the apparent lack of control over some types of caravan sites.

Councillor P Heinrich stated that certificated sites were restricted to 5 caravans.  However, he had concerns regarding larger, formal caravan sites, particularly with regard to highway issues.

It was proposed by Councillor A Brown, seconded by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones and

RECOMMENDED by 8 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions

That Cabinet endorses the revised Policies ECN6: New Build Tourist Accommodation, Static Holiday Caravans & Holiday Lodges & Extensions to Existing sites, ECN7: Use of Land for Touring Caravan & Camping Sites, ECN 8: New-Build & Extensions to Tourist Attractions and ECN 9: Retaining an Adequate Supply & Mix of Tourist Accommodation, and delegates responsibility for drafting such an approach, including that of finalising the associated policies and policies mapping, to the Planning Policy Manager.

Summary:                   This report seeks approval for the Ludham and Stalham Staithe Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans in line with national policy and best practice.

Recommendations:     That the appraisals as set out within the body of this report be considered and taken forward for adoption by Cabinet.

The Broads Authority Historic Environment Manager presented the report.  She stated that the Conservation Area Appraisals had already been approved by the Broads Authority and recommended that both documents be recommended for adoption by the North Norfolk District Council Cabinet.

Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones referred to the improvement works that had already been carried out at Stalham Staithe and expressed appreciation for the help given by the Broads Authority.  She stated that some of the buildings were within the jurisdiction of the District Council and some within the Broads Authority, which caused problems.

Councillor H Blathwayt, as NNDC representative on the Broads Authority and Heritage Asset Review Group, commended the documents to the Working Party.  He thanked the officers of the Broads Authority for their work and inclusive approach to the Ludham appraisal and stated that Councillor Varley, local Member for Ludham, had expressed his support.

The Democratic Services Manager shared Councillor Varley’s comments on the Zoom chat facility.  In summary, the Chairman stated that Councillor Varley was very supportive of the appraisal for Ludham and appreciated the efforts of the team and the Broads Authority for putting it together in difficult circumstances.  Councillor Varley supported the removal of Latchmoor Park as a farmland area and was pleased that the school and district nurse’s home had been included.  The appraisal brought clarity to the management of the trees as they were in a protected area.  Councillor Varley had been impressed by the quality of the work done in bringing the appraisal to the Working Party.

Councillor N Dixon stated that as County Councillor he could confirm that this had been an excellent example of joint working by Stalham Town Council, the Broads Authority and Norfolk County Council in addressing what had been a distressing and enduring problem at Stalham Staithe, and he thanked all parties that had been involved.

Councillor Mrs Grove-Jones endorsed Councillor Dixon’s comments and also extended thanks to the NNDC Conservation and Design Team Leader and his team.

It was proposed by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, seconded by Councillor N Dixon and

RECOMMENDED unanimously

That Cabinet adopts the Ludham and Stalham Staithe Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans 2020.