Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mr T Adams and Dr C Stockton.  Two substitute Members attended the meeting as shown above.

The Chairman welcomed the members of the public who were present and stated that he would allow them to speak under the relevant agenda items, and that he would take agenda item 10 first.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Working Party held on 9 November 2020.

The Minutes of a meeting of the Working Party held on 9 November 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.

All Members had received information from Mr Mack, landowner of BLA01, and numerous emails in respect of items on the agenda.

Councillor Mrs W Fredericks declared that she knew the landowner of Mundesley MUN03/A. 

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett declared that she knew the land owner of Mundesley MUN03/A.  She was Vice-Chairman of the Norfolk Coast Partnership and the Council’s representative on the Wash and North Norfolk Marine Partnership, both of which had had lengthy inputs into the Landscape Character Assessment.

Councillor P Heinrich declared that he was a member of North Walsham Town Council.

None.

The Planning Policy Manager presented an update report on the deferred sites at Blakeney and Mundesley.

Blakeney

Rosemary Thew, Chairman of Blakeney Parish Council, made a statement to the Working Party (summarised).  The Kingsway site (BLA04/A) was preferred but further information had recently been tabled, which the Parish Council had not had the opportunity to discuss.  There had been no public consultation on the Oddfellows site (BLA01/B).  The Oddfellows site would block views, require an extensive roadway which would cause disruption to residents and lighting would run counter to the dark skies policy.  Direct access via Morston Road would be dangerous for pedestrians and proposed pedestrian access would compound problems on Queensway, which was already dangerous.  The Kingsway site would be closer to existing development, would not block views and a footpath ran along the length of the site which would allow easy access to village facilities and for children to walk directly to school.  Affordable housing was the main issue for the village and more large houses and second homes were not needed.  She requested deferral for one month to allow both proposals to be tabled at a Parish Council meeting on 12 January 2021.

The Chairman responded that it would not be appropriate to delay consideration of this matter.  Full consideration had been given in July 2020 and the Local Plan was subject to a rigid timetable to enable it to be submitted for examination by the Inspector in mid-2021.

Four members of the public spoke in support of BLA01/B (summarised):

Clive Albany: Referred to the previous decision and discussions at the July meeting.  The areas of concern had been resolved.  BLA04/A would be more prominent and would not provide the opportunity for green space.  The 1.5 ha of green space, housing design, safe village pathways and off-road siting easily outweighed any minor negatives of BLA01/B when compared to BLA04/A's prominent, crowded basic design and total lack of any public green space.

John Fairlie: Both sites have been tested against the adopted and draft Landscape Character Assessment and adopted Conservation Area and Management Plan criteria.  BLA01/B would meet allocation and affordable housing requirements, with landscaped views from Langham Road.  The topography of the site would allow for a scheme with open space and landscaping features that would reflect the density of development across the village and blend into the existing settlement pattern.  It would provide footpath connectivity with Morston Road and maintain important views.  BLA04/A would conflict with the Local Plan evidence base as it would create a hard edge to the village, interrupt the setting of the Church, provide no connectivity to residential streets and change the character of the approach to the village.

John Bryant: Site 01 would best meet the needs of the village, is already more connected to the village than site 04, and would be further connected by footpaths and a cycleway.  It would provide for landscaping and open space, and have the minimum environmental and visual impact on the landscape.  Plans for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

The Planning Policy Team Leader presented a report relating to the Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) and Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (LCS) Supplementary Planning Guidance, which considered the representations made at Regulation 12 and 13 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance preparation.  He recommended that the Working Party recommend to Cabinet the adoption of the documents as guidance to inform the preparation of the Local Plan and for use as material considerations in the preparation and determination of planning proposals in North Norfolk, and to give the Head of Planning the authority to follow the remaining statutory processes which included the withdrawal of the 2009 LCA and the issuing of notices to replace the statutory documents on the Council’s website and publish them in a timely manner.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett paid tribute to the Landscape Officer (Design) for her work on this matter. She proposed the recommendation.

The Chairman supported Councillor Mrs Fitch-Tillett’s comments and seconded the proposal.

RECOMMENDED unanimously

That Cabinet:

1.    Adopts and publishes the revised 2021 Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Sensitivity Assessment as Supplementary Planning Guidance.

2.    Revokes the existing 2009 North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment in line with the legislative requirements.

Gives delegated authority to the Head of Planning in relation to the required statutory process.

The Planning Policy Team Leader presented a report which summarised the feedback received in response to the Regulation 18 stage of plan preparation and sought to agree the final in principle policy approach to address the impacts of growth through the adoption of a Green Infrastructure and Recreational Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett was pleased that this strategy had come forward.  There had been an enormous amount of visitor disturbance during 2020.  She paid tribute to the work that had been carried out by the Council’s Officers and across the County through the Duty to Cooperate, and proposed the Officer’s recommendation. 

Councillor A Brown seconded the proposal.

Councillor Ms V Gay asked how the scheme would work and what would happen once the tariffs were collected.

The Planning Policy Team Leader explained that the tariffs would be collected at a fixed rate per dwelling, which would be paid into a collective fund to be controlled by a County-wide steering group.  The funding would be used for a range of measures including the appointment of rangers and provision of signage.  The group had not yet been set up but it would be necessary to demonstrate that it was in place when the Plan reached the examination stage.  Kings Lynn and Great Yarmouth Councils were already operating their own schemes and would pay the funds into the County-wide fund once it was set up.

The Planning Policy Manager explained that the Working Party was being asked to agree the principle of the tariff payments.  The administration of the scheme was an issue for the future.

The Landscape Officer explained that it was likely that roving wardens would be appointed who would be allocated to specific sites once the impact had been identified and the money collected.  The wardens would combat visitor issues through signage and direct communication to encourage appropriate behaviour by the public at these sites.  This was seen as best practice and schemes were in place elsewhere in the country.   The partnership would be Norfolk based and would be able to allocate money when the development and impact was envisaged.

Councillor P Heinrich welcomed the proposals.  He was pleased to see that Bacton Wood and Ansons Wood would form a country park and stated that it was important to be able to manage those areas better than was currently the case when the North Walsham Western Extension was developed.

RECOMMENDED unanimously

1.    That Cabinet endorses the approach and delegates responsibility for drafting such an approach, including that of finalising the associated tariff and Policy to be included in the Local Plan to the Planning Manager.

2.    That Cabinet endorse Option 1 set out in the report to the Working Party in respect of the collection of the tariff.

The Planning Policy Team Leader presented a report relating to draft Environment policies, 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 commended the Officers on their work on the policies.  The Planning Policy Team Leader thanked him for his comments.

Councillor Ms V Gay welcomed the policies and the strengthening of the wording compared to the current Core Strategy, and in particular the requirement to comply with the Design Guide.  She welcomed the attention given to geology, which had been highlighted in the consultation, and the particular strength given to the historic environment.

Councillor P Heinrich supported Councillor Ms Gay’s comments and thanked the Officers for their work.  He considered that ENV9: High Quality Design would be critical to the Development Brief for the North Walsham Western Extension and should be seen by the public as setting the expected standards.

The Planning Policy Team Leader explained that Officers had worked very collaboratively across the disciplines to ensure that the policies flowed on from each other and connected back to the Council’s objectives. 

It was proposed by Councillor Ms V Gay, seconded by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones and

RECOMMENDED

That Cabinet endorses the revised Policies below and delegates responsibility for drafting such an approach, including that of finalising the associated policies to the Planning Manager:

ENV 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty & The Broads;

ENV 2: Protection & Enhancement of Landscape & Settlement Character;

ENV4: Biodiversity & Geology;

ENV 5: Green Infrastructure & Public Rights of Way;

ENV 6: Trees, Hedgerows & Development;

ENV 9: High Quality Design;

ENV 10: Protection of Amenity;

ENV 11: Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment

Barry Hester made a statement to the Working Party (summarised):

The Town Council and Regenerate North Walsham CIC had tried to set up discussions with NNDC without success and the policy wording now presented is a fait accompli that did not reflect an adequate policy basis to meet the aspirations of North Walsham as the next major growth point within the District.  It did not:

• acknowledge the work done to bring national expertise and potential funding.
• answer questions around how the required infrastructure and the town’s economic ambitions would be delivered.
• convey the desire for the extension to be a modern garden suburb that would become a mixed-use, walkable neighbourhood instead of a vast estate generating more commuting to Norwich and seizing up the local road network.
• address key issues of viability and deliverability.

Mr Hester requested the withdrawal of the item to allow for dialogue between the District and Town Council and for the technical matters to be resolved.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the final suite of preferred allocations for North Walsham for inclusion in the Regulation 19 consultation.  He reported that work on the Development Brief was ongoing and it was hoped to continue constructive dialogue with the Town Council and key stakeholders in the New Year.  Local Members were being kept informed and it was hoped to undertake public consultation in the Spring.  Local Members and the Working Party would have the opportunity to consider the draft Brief prior to the public consultation.    He presented an amended policy recommendation for site NW62/A to include reference to the requirement for the Western Link Road to provide a connection from Cromer Road to the industrial estate (Cornish Way) and the requirement for the production of a Consultation and Engagement Statement.

Councillor E Seward stated that he was speaking as both as a District Councillor and County Councillor for North Walsham.  He agreed with the Officer assessments of the site allocations and considered that there was little option than to have a large development in the town if the Government’s housing targets were to be met.  He referred to the sites at Nursery Drive and Norwich Road, which had been allocated in the current plan but remained undeveloped, as a reminder that allocations did not necessarily lead to more housing.

With regard to the Western Extension, Councillor Seward stated that this was a major development for the town and it was important to get the supporting infrastructure correct.  He referred to highways study that had considered the viability of extending the link road into the industrial estate.  He considered that a new railway bridge was unnecessary as the existing bridge was adequate and all that was needed were traffic lights and a form of crossing for pedestrians, and more work was needed in that regard.  An element of public funding would be necessary in order to get the infrastructure right, but it had not been recognised in correspondence he had had with the Head of Service at Norfolk County  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

The Planning Policy Manager presented a report updating the Brownfield Land Register and recommended that the register is published as required by the Town and Country Planning (Brownfield Land Register) Regulations 2017 and that Part 2 of the Register is not undertaken.

It was proposed by Councillor A Brown, seconded by Councillor P Heinrich and

RECOMMENDED unanimously

That the register is published as required by the Town and Country Planning (Brownfield Land Register) Regulations 2017 and that Part 2 of the Register is not undertaken.