Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr G Bull and Cllr M Hankins.

None received.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Working Party held on Monday, 11^th September 2023.

The minutes of the Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party held on 11^th September were approved as correct record subject to a minor amendment to minute 34 to include the word ‘amendment’ after ‘NNDC would not be’ and before ‘having submitted…’

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.

      i.        The PPM introduced the officer’s report and outlined the stages the Blakeney Neighbourhood Plan had progressed through. He advised that there were two policy areas of interest: principal residence restriction, and affordable housing requirements.

The principal residence restriction, the first of its kind in the district, applied to new dwellings. This restriction ensured that new dwellings built would have the restriction applied to the planning permission, thereby preventing the dwelling from being built and used as a second home. The affordable housing requirement introduced a provision that affordable housing be made available solely to people with a local connection. A local connection being defined as people who live in the village or one of the adjacent parishes.

The PPM advised that, by contrast, North Norfolk District Council on rural exceptions development applied the local lettings restrictions. On allocated sites the affordable housing delivered was made available for general lettings. The general lettings principal was important given affordable housing was not built out in every community, and it may otherwise be restrictive to those on the housing waiting list.

Further, the PPM considered that the local housing restriction applied to Blakeney would not be suitable for bigger communities where lots of affordable housing was to be provided.

     ii.        The Chairman noted the Neighbourhood Plan’s tight timeline for adoption and acknowledged the upcoming Wells-next-the-sea Neighbourhood Plan. He asked if the Wells Neighbourhood Plan may include features of the Blakeney Plan.

    iii.        The PPM advised he was aware that the Blakeney Plan would be looked at by other rural coastal communities, particularly the principal residence restriction being used to limit second homes. The restriction would not apply to those properties already in use as a second homes, or those properties already in situ from becoming second homes. The PPM advised the Council had considered this restriction in its Local Plan preparation’s but decided it would not be an effective mechanism for limiting second homes as it would have a limited scope.

   iv.        Cllr J Toye asked that Development Committee reports make clear when an application may be subject to restrictions of a Neighbourhood Plan.

     v.        The PPM confirmed details of the Neighbourhood Plan policy context would be provided, along with efforts to resolve policy conflict, and weight to be attributed to such policies. Neighbourhood Plans were expected to align with Local Plans; therefore, the areas of differences were considered to be marginal.

   vi.        The Local Member – Cllr V Holliday – acknowledged the tremendous community support for the Plan with 90% of voters supporting its adoption. She noted that 100% of the local population was for affordable housing for local people specifically, and 78% agreed with limiting second homes. There was further strong sentiment for the infill policy, dark skies, and others.

  vii.        Cllr N Dixon noted the restrictions identified with interest and acknowledged that the Council would want to monitor the effectiveness of those policies. He commented that the outcome of the monitoring may be of benefit to members when considering  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

      i.        The PPM introduced the officer’s report and presentation for the Annual Monitoring report (AMR), included on the agenda. He outlined the purpose of the AMR and highlighted key figures and indicators detailed in the report with relation to housing.

Notably, the Council’s target of 400 dwellings being granted in the district per year had not been met, with 175 dwellings granted either Full or Outline permission between 1^st April 2022 and 31^st March 2023. The PPM stated this was an incredibly low figure which could be attributed to the impact of Nutrient Neutrality, and the age of the current Local Plan. Those larger sites in the Local Plan had been granted permission and built out, leading to a reliance on small developments, Barn Conversions and Change of Use. The Councils target of 100 affordable homes per annum had also been impacted, with only 24 granted permission in the outlined period. The PPM expected that permissions granted would remain low for the next 2 years till issues were resolved and advised that this would have an impact on the Councils 5-year Housing Land supply (HLS)

     ii.        Cllr L Paterson asked if the Council were at risk of a predatory application by consequence of its 5-year HSL position.

    iii.        The PPM advised without a 5-year HLS the Council would need to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. In turn, developers and landowners may choose to make applications on unallocated development sites. In this situation the Council in its determinations must decide if an application were nevertheless sustainable.

   iv.        The ADP advised that over 140 applications were in abeyance due to Nutrient Neutrality in the district. This issue did not apply to the whole district and there were many areas of the district which remained unaffected.

     v.        Cllr J Toye asked if the number of applications had declined.

   vi.        The PPM advised there had been a decrease in applications, in part because developers were put off by the costs associated in preparing and making applications whilst Nutrient Neutrality was stymieing development.

  vii.        The ADP confirmed that bio-diversity net gain changes had now been timetabled by central government. He noted that some may seek to submit applications before the implementation date.

 viii.        Cllr P Heinrich acknowledged the difficult situation the Council was in and expressed his concern that that lack of 5-year HLS would lead to predatory applications. He asked if/when the Nutrient Neutrality situation may be resolved.

   ix.        The ADP outlined various means in which Nutrient Neutrality may be resolved including by government resolution, resolution by individual developers, development of a credit scheme, or focusing of development outside of affected areas. He acknowledged the challenges with each method.

     x.        Cllr N Dixon recognised the lack of the 5-year HLS and the impact of Nutrient Neutrality. He stated that the Council had endeavoured to do all that it could within its powers, but that Nutrient Neutrality was outside of its control. Cllr N Dixon asked how a Planning Inspector  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

      i.        The PPM issued a correction regarding his statement for the Blakeney Neighbourhood Plan on local lettings restrictions on allocated sites. He advised the local lettings restrictions would apply to all affordable housing delivered in the village other than that proposed on the allocation in the Local Plan.

     ii.        The ADP updated members on the Glaven Valley Conservation Area Appraisal (GLVAA).

    iii.        Cllr V Holliday noted that there had been some push back with the timetable for the GVCAA in that it would not align with parish meetings.

   iv.        The ADP encouraged Parish Councils and relevant parties to contact the Council should there be any particular challenges with the timeline.

             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.