Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs P Heinrich, J Punchard and J Toye. Cllr J Rest was present as a substitute for Cllr J Punchard; with Cllr E Seward present as a substitute for Cllr P Heinrich.

Mr M Sloman : Sharington Parochial Church

Mr Sloman made a statement with relation to Agenda Item 8, and expressed thanks from the Parochial Church Council (PCC) for the third draft revisions. He stressed the importance of churches in being vibrant organisations making significant contributions to communities, and the disappointment that this had not been reflected in the Purcell Report, noting the lack of engagement received by the PCC from Purcell’s.

The Chairman responded to the Public Statement and acknowledged that the Church of England had engaged with the Landscape Officer in connection with tree maintenance. The Chairman stated he was satisfied that the recommendations contained within the appraisal were appropriate.

The CDTL welcomed the response from the PCC and advised that comments submitted had helped to inform the appraisal. He commented that the appraisal was primarily a planning tool to assist in the development management process, and stressed the importance of documenting the significance of a particular designation rather than looking at resourcing and stewardship, however noted aspects of this were considered. The CDTL stated it would go beyond the remit of the appraisal to consider how particular buildings or plots were operated, and that this would result in very lengthy documents.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Working Party held on 6^th December 2021.

The Minutes of the Working Party held on 21^st December 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.

The Chairman declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 8, he is the Local Member for the parishes considered within the associated area appraisals and management plan, but advised he had not submitted any comments on the public portal.

None.

None.

Officer Report:

The SCDO introduced the Glaven Valley Appraisal, which sought approval to adopt to the Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans for Brinton, Edgefield, Hunworth, Sharrington, Stody and Thornage. These documents had been produced in collaboration with the Council’s appointed consultants, Purcells. The Officer stated due to the early designation dates for the Conservation Areas, these settlements had been prioritised as an updated, robust definition and understanding was needed which would aid in informing and assisting future decision making.  She advised that the appraisals followed the successful adoption of other settlements further up the Glaven Valley including Holt, Blakeney and Cley-next-the-sea.

The SCDO affirmed the definition of Conservation Area as defined in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as ‘an area of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which is desirable to preserve or enhance’, and the responsibility of the Local Authority to formulate and publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of Conservation Areas. The appraisal documents were considered to conform to current Historic England Guidance.

The SCDO advised that a Public Consultation had been undertaken from 22^nd November 2021 – 21^st January 2022 resulting in 32 responses received from members of the public, Parish Councils and interested parties. The Public Consultation had been extended to accommodate the Christmas period and ongoing issues with COVID-19, and had been subject to a press release, social media campaign, poster distribution, local exhibitions and Public Meetings held on 15^th December 2021 in Hunworth and Sharrington. 

Individual Conservation Area Appraisals

With respect of the Brinton Appraisal, the SCDO outlined the proposed changes to the Brinton Boundary which would exclude the Meadow between Brinton and Thornage from the Conservation Area. This was done to allow a clearer definition of the special interest and facilitate the future management of each. Within Brinton, 2 areas were considered for local listing due to making a positive contribution to the area.

The SCDO commented that the Edgefield Boundary review was subject to areas of inclusions and exclusions, some of which were modern buildings which were not thought to contribute to the special interest. The addition included a farmstead to the south, as well as the Church, which was a listed building. She noted that there were proposed additions to the Edgefield local listing, and highlighted a semi-detached pair of houses which were considered to be worth recognising.

The SCDO stated that Hunworth was also subject to a mixture of inclusions and exclusions from the boundary review, and that Officers considered the Mill would be better aligned with the Glaven Valley Conservation area given its industrial significance. She noted that there were no buildings proposed for Local Listing.

With regards to Sharrington, the SCDO advised that the Boundary review was considered to tidy the affected boundaries and would include the addition of some parcels of land to the north which would better rationalise the area. The SCDO highlighted some of the proposed properties which would be included within  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

The PPM spoke to the Officers Report, and acknowledged that Nutrient Neutrality had significantly impacted the district and county with respect of planning applications. The guidance, introduced by Natural England, related to the protection of habitat regulations and aimed to curb the discharge of nitrates and phosphates into the Wensum and Broad’s water system, both of which are designated Conservation Areas. The Local Authority were obliged to ensure its actives did not have an adverse impact on the receiving water course, including through the granting of planning permission for additional overnight accommodation. At present, Anglian Water were licensed to discharge ‘dirty water’, into the Wensum and Broads Water systems, which was objected by Natural England, who considered the water courses to be in an unfavourable condition, largely due to nutrient enrichment. As a consequence the water lacked sufficient oxygen and had an adverse impact on wildlife, contrary to the habitat requirements. As this was Primary Legislation, any Local Plan or planning permissions granted which failed to address the issues outlined were considered to be unlawful.

With reference to the Local Plan, the PPM advised that with Nutrient Neutrality being a new policy, it was not currently referenced in the emerging Local Plan which would require significant revisions in order to be considered lawful and sound. It is current form it would fail to satisfy the expectation of the Planning Inspector.

The PPM considered several changes would be required to the emerging Local Plan. First, a review of the Habitat Regulations Assessment by the independent consultant. Second, to state within the Local Plan that no development may take place in the affected areas unless concerns related to Nutrient Neutrality were addressed and mitigated. Mitigation measures themselves would need to be outlined. Lastly, development viability, as there would be impacts on developers which may affect affordable housing schemes.

He anticipated this matter could take between 6-9 months to overcome, but that it was more likely to last in excess of year before a clear, sufficient understanding was made which would hold up against Local Plan evaluation.

Members Debate:

1. The Chairman advised that he had attended a Norfolk Strategic Planning Framework Meeting with County Cllrs, and other district Cllrs on the 14^th April, noting that Legal advice had been taken, and that no recommendation had come from the government which considered Planning Applications should be paused.

The PPM affirmed that Natural England were advisors, who advise the government and local authorities, and whilst they were not decision makers they were considered the competent authority. The threshold for the Habitat Regulations was stipulated as ‘beyond reasonable scientific doubt’ applying the precautionary principle, a high standard to overcome. He stated that various parts of the district may be more affected than other areas, and developers would need to consider mitigation of discharge of water waste including what interventions could be made at different stages. The PPM advised the Authority were anxious not to delay decision making for Planning Applications for any longer than was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

The PPTL provided a verbal update to Members on the Consultation on the Local Plan and Work Programme, which did not reflect Nutrient Neutrality. He advised that the regulation 19 Consultation period closed in February and that 404 responses had been submitted on the portal with a further 106 letters/emails received. Roughly 64% of the submitted responses were in the prescribed format, but as many of the responses were not in the prescribed format and referenced specific sections, therefore additional work would need to be undertaken.

The PPTL advised that the team were currently engaged with other work, and that responses to the consolation period would not be looked at till May. This was behind the targeted time and was due to unexpected increases in workloads caused in part by Nutrient Neutrality and the introduction of the GIRAMS Tariff.

He advised that the Local Plan had been broadly supported, and that where there were issues of soundness and legality, they were not considered to be key and were instead based on perceptions.

The PPTL generalised that comments and objections focused on infrastructure provision accompanying growth, and the belief that no growth should occur till improvements to roads and health care provisions were made. The site which received the greatest number of representations was C22 2 in Cromer.

Responses from Statutory Bodies

The responses received by statutory bodies were broadly supportive with the exception of Broadland District Council which raised a specific legal challenge around the wider off-site highways impacts and improvements due to North Walsham West which would need to be factored into the final plan.

He commented that Natural England raised an objection to air quality, and suggested that further research be undertaken with regard to traffic levels in close proximity to road networks, and requested that various policies including ENV6 and C13 were linked in this matter. The PPTL stated he understood this matter had already been looked at by the Council, but that additional investigations were required.

With reference to Historic England, the PPTL commented that they were in support with many of the inclusions within the draft local plan, and particularly liked that a historic impact assessment had been undertaken. They encouraged findings be replicated verbatim in the document. The PPTL acknowledged there had been some issue with staff turnover affecting consistency with respect of wording used, and that Historic England had provided modified language it suggested be used. This would need to be considered by Officers going forward. Additionally Historic England would prefer that each Heritage Asset by considered individually rather than be considered in a broader context, this too would need to be given further consideration by Officers.

The PPTL commented that the Statutory Health Body welcomed the Local Plan, and advised that they would be changing name to Norfolk and Waveney Integrated Care System in July 2022, which they wish to be reflected in the Local Plan.

He advised that Norfolk County Council were supportive but sought minor amendments and or clarifications to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

             To pass the following resolution (if necessary):

“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”

None.

None.

None