Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - Council Offices. View directions

Contact: Linda Yarham  Email: linda.yarham@north-norfolk.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

1.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors T Adams, D Baker and J Punchard.  There was one substitute Member in attendance.

2.

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

Minutes:

None.

3.

MINUTES pdf icon PDF 123 KB

To approve as a correct record the minutes of a meeting of the Working Party held on 15 April 2019.

Minutes:

The Minutes of a meeting of the Working Party held on 15 April 2019 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

4.

ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS

Minutes:

None.

5.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Minutes:

None.

6.

UPDATE ON MATTERS FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING (IF ANY)

Minutes:

None.

7.

Purpose of Working Party and Terms of Reference pdf icon PDF 122 KB

Summary:

 

This report explains the key purposes of the Planning Policy and Built Heritage Working Party and invites comments on revised Terms of Reference.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the revised Terms of Reference are recommended to Cabinet for approval.

 

 

Cabinet Member(s)

 

Ward(s) affected 

Cllr Karen Ward

All

Contact Officer, telephone number and email: Mark Ashwell, mark.ashwell@north-norfolk.gov.uk. 01263 516325

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Planning Policy Manager presented revised Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Working Party for consideration.

 

The Chairman stated that one of the previous concerns was that the timetable of Council meetings meant that if an item missed Cabinet it could be some time before recommendations of the Working Party were approved.  It was necessary to ensure that actions did not get held up unnecessarily.

 

Councillor Ms V Gay considered that the TOR were very good in terms of explaining what the Working Party did, but they needed to be more specific in terms of governance.  For example, the draft TOR did not actually state that it was a Cabinet Working Party or that the Plan would be adopted by Full Council, despite these being identified in the covering report. 

 

Councillor N Dixon also considered that clarification was needed with regard to the Working Party’s links with Cabinet, Overview and Scrutiny and Full Council.

 

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett supported the above views.  She asked if the TOR had to be considered by the Constitution Working Party.

 

The Chairman explained that as the Planning Policy and Built Heritage Working Party was a Cabinet working party, the TOR did not need to be considered by the Constitution Working Party.  However, this would be double checked with the Monitoring Officer.

 

Councillor Ms V Gay considered that it would be helpful if the TOR was associated with the Constitution and all TOR documents collected together in one place on the website so they were easy to find for Councillors and members of the public.

 

RESOLVED

 

That subject to confirmation that the Terms of Reference do not require consideration by the Constitution Working Party, Cabinet be recommended to approve the Terms of Reference for the Working Party subject to amendments to specify the governance arrangements as outlined above.

 

8.

Local Plan Consultation Update pdf icon PDF 125 KB

Summary:

 

This report provides a short update on the recent public consultation on the Draft North Norfolk Local Plan and associated documents.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

The item is for information only.

 

 

Cabinet Member(s)

 

Ward(s) affected 

Cllr Karen Ward

All

Contact Officer, telephone number and email: Mark Ashwell, mark.ashwell@north-norfolk.gov.uk. 01263 516325

 

 

Minutes:

The Planning Policy Manager presented an update report on the Local Plan consultation process and gave a verbal update on the main themes which had arisen in the consultation responses and advised that details of all comments received and recommendations in relation to how to proceed would be made at later Working Parties. He stressed that he was not reporting comments at this stage for discussion. 

 

Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones asked how many new dwellings were likely to result from the call for sites in the villages.

 

The Planning Policy Manager stated that the number of new dwellings was not known at this stage.  The first call for sites had been unrestrained and some sites had been put forward in villages.  A second call for sites had focused on 30 shortlisted villages, however sites had been put forward in unselected settlements and additional sites had been put forward the towns.  Overall, sufficient land had been put forward for 55,000 dwellings and around 10% of this land was likely to be allocated.

 

Councillor Mrs Grove-Jones referred to a newspaper article she had read relating to a ban on second homes in Mevagissey which had apparently backfired as housebuilding had stopped.  She considered that it was interesting as the Council was considering this approach in some of the coastal towns.

 

The Planning Policy Manager advised that the Draft Plan had invited comments about second homes and that this issue would need to be considered further

 

The Planning Policy Manager outlined some of the main recurring themes arising from the consultation responses, namely:

 

·       There were mixed views as to whether or not development should take place in villages.  Some people considered that growth would save villages from ‘dying’, whilst others thought there should be no development as there were no services, and that it was inappropriate to declare a climate change emergency and then build in villages where residents would be dependent on long distance travel to access services.

 

·       There was a broad theoretical acceptance of affordable housing in villages.  However, views had been expressed that allocations would diminish the possibility of affordable housing coming forward as they would create hope value for landowners and take up sites which might otherwise be available for exceptions schemes.  Most communities which would accept affordable housing would only do so if they were occupied by people from their own community and not used to address housing needs elsewhere.

 

·       There was scepticism as to how the Plan would deliver supporting infrastructure in a timely manner.  People were concerned that housing came first and that delivery of infrastructure such as doctors’ surgeries and schools were delivered much later, if at all.  These facilities were not necessarily provided by developers.

 

·       Over 50% of representations related to individual sites, with significant objections to some of the proposals.

 

·       There was conditional support for further development in North Walsham, but people were not persuaded that the proposals would be deliverable or were right for the town.

 

·       There was some cynicism around the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

Housing Delivery and Five Year Land Supply Statement pdf icon PDF 259 KB

Summary:

 

This report provides an overview of two key housing delivery performance measures. It explains the national Housing Delivery Test (HDT) and the process for preparing a Five Year Land Supply Statement. (5YLS). The results of both tests for 2019 are presented.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1.That the Council seeks independent advice on the potential impacts of UPC on projected housing growth in the District prior to publishing this year’s land supply statement.

 

2. That pending receipt and consideration of this advice the Council continues to give full weight to adopted planning policies dealing with housing supply when determining planning applications.

 

Cabinet Member(s)

 

Ward(s) affected 

Cllr Karen Ward

All

 

Contact Officer, telephone number and email: Mark Ashwell, mark.ashwell@north-norfolk.gov.uk. 01263 516325

 

 

Minutes:

The Planning Policy Manager presented an overview of two key housing delivery performance measures: the national Housing Delivery Test and the process for preparing a Five Year Land Supply Statement.  He explained how the targets were worked out and the consequences of not meeting the targets.

 

Councillor N Pearce asked if there were any consequences for over-delivery against the housing delivery targets.

 

The Planning Policy Manager explained that there was no reward for over-delivery and there was a risk that significant over-delivery would make it more difficult to deliver sufficient numbers in future years as it would use up future land supply. 

 

The Planning Policy Manager explained in detail how the five-year land supply was worked out.  He stated that the Council’s affordability uplift was 38% which was almost the maximum that could be applied.

 

The Chairman stated that she had been approached by other Councils with a high number of second homes to look at a business rates challenge, and that whilst North Norfolk had the third highest number of second homes in the country, none of those Councils had an affordability uplift as high as North Norfolk’s. 

 

Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones asked how the targets could be achieved if developers did not build out their permissions. 

 

The Planning Policy Manager explained that allocations would need to be made in areas which were attractive to developers, rather than on strategic sites which could take many years to develop.   At the time of the previous housing crash the Authority had introduced a Housing Incentive Scheme which relaxed the requirement for affordable homes to incentivise developers to build.

 

The Planning Policy Manager explained that there were concerns that the Government’s household projection figure on which the land supply calculations were based was flawed, which meant that North Norfolk would need to plan for more dwellings than necessary.  He recommended that independent advice be sought on this matter prior to publication of the land supply statement.

 

The Chairman added that one of the reasons why it was worth seeking independent expertise was that the inward migration trend for 2016 was headed downwards and it was felt that there was a need to test the figures as it would have significant impact going forward.  The Council was being asked to base its targets on figures where evidence was emerging that the figure could be wrong.

 

Councillor Mrs W Fredericks asked if pension income had been taken into account when calculating the affordability uplift.

 

The Planning Policy Manager explained that median earnings and median house prices were published by the Government.  He considered that pension income would be included in the calculation but this was national evidence and would be applied consistently across the country.

 

Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones supported the suggestion to seek independent evidence with regard to migration figures provided that the consultant had no Government connection.

 

The Planning Policy Manager stated that the consultants who had undertaken the Strategic Housing Market Assessment would be commissioned to do the work.

 

Councillor A  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.