Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor N Pearce.  There were no substitute Members in attendance.

None.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Working Party held on 22 February 2021.

The Minutes of a meeting of the Working Party held on 22 February 2021 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.  Members are requested to refer to the attached guidance and flowchart.

None.

The Chairman welcomed Councillor R Kershaw to his first meeting following his appointment to the Working Party in place of Councillor T Adams.  He expressed his thanks to Councillor Adams for his work during his time as a Working Party Member.

The Planning Policy Manager presented a report that provided an overview of the main development trends in the District in the period 2019-2020 and measured performance against adopted Core Strategy policies and corporate objectives.  He presented slides which gave more detail in respect of the key indicators in the Monitoring Report.  He stated that the document would be published on the Council’s website within the next few weeks and would send the link to Members once the document had been published.

The Chairman stated that the Annual Monitoring Report was an important baseline document and thanked the Planning Monitoring Officer for his report.

The Planning Policy Manager presented a report that provided an update on the progress of the Norfolk Strategic Planning Framework and Statement of Common Ground following a recent review.  He explained that this document would provide evidence to the Planning Inspector that the Council had fulfilled its legal duty to co-operate with neighbouring authorities and other relevant bodies on cross-boundary issues at the examination stage of the Local Plan.  The document would continue to be amended and reviewed.  However, there had been an indication in the Planning White Paper that the duty to co-operate might be removed at some time in the future.  He recommended the formal endorsement of the revised document. 

Councillor J Punchard considered that strategic employment sites should be developed to serve the north and west of the District, bearing in mind the amount of housing that would be built in Fakenham and the Cromer/Sheringham area.  He also considered that there should be more emphasis on improving digital connectivity for all dwellings, whether new build or existing, as many people suffered from poor connectivity and internet speeds and there was a greater need now more people were working from home.

The Chairman stated that employment promotion and the need to provide employment to support housing developments was raised regularly at the Working Party.  The main towns of Fakenham and North Walsham, in addition to the existing Enterprise Park at Scottow, were primary areas to consider for development.   The Duty to Co-operate Forum had discussed connectivity issues and the need to improve the 4G connectivity before investing in 5G.

Councillor R Kershaw considered that it was evident from meetings he had attended on behalf of the Leader that there was a concentration on the tech corridor from Cambridge to Norwich, but nothing for the west of the area.  There were assets such as West Raynham and Tattersett that should be developed, but these were not covered in any detail in the document.  He considered that there should be more engagement for North Norfolk in the tech sector, and particularly in the west of the District.

The Planning Policy Manager advised the Working Party to support this version of the document, but to make the point that the next version should take a broader view of the issues affecting the rural economy and place greater emphasis on the specific issues affecting North Norfolk.   With regard to issues raised regarding connectivity, he stated that this document related to land use issues and therefore the retrofitting of existing dwellings and informing decisions in respect of network investment sat outside the Local Plan process. The Local Plan could influence the delivery of specific measures through planning applications for new build developments, but the broader aspects relating to roll out were corporate objectives rather than land use planning issues.

Councillor P Heinrich considered that there was little point considering industrial developments if the telecommunications was inadequate and pressure should be put on the Government and Openreach.  He stated that it had been reported  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.