Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mr N Pearce, Mr J Punchard and Dr C Stockton.

None.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Working Party held on 14 October 2019.

The Minutes of a meeting of the Working Party held on 14 October 2019 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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.

The Planning Policy Team Leader would update the Working Party on the latest position regarding neighbourhood plans at item 10 of the agenda.

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.

None.

The Planning Monitoring Officer presented an update report on the Brownfield Land Register 2019.  He recommended the publication of the Brownfield Register with 2019 updates and sought agreement not to undertake Part 2 of the Register.

Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones referred to paragraph 4.5 of the Officer’s report which stated that it was highly likely that other qualifying sites were not included in the register, and asked what the “other qualifying sites” referred to.

The Planning Policy Team Leader explained that these were sites which were outside the settlement hierarchy but which otherwise met the qualifying criteria.  The Brownfield Register only included sites within the settlement hierarchy.

Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones referred to two contaminated land areas in Stalham.  These sites had not been excluded from residential use, but she understood that contamination excluded them from such use.

The Planning Monitoring Officer explained that contaminated sites would only be delivered if it was economically viable to do so. 

The Chairman stated that not all contaminated sites were the same in terms of remedial work.  Some would be viable but others would not.

Councillor Mrs Grove-Jones asked whether contaminated sites would be acceptable for industrial development.

The Planning Policy Team Leader explained that it would depend on whether they came onto the market and were sufficiently viable for development.

Councillor Ms V Gay referred to Mace’s Yard in North Walsham, which had been subject to several planning permissions but had not been delivered in 15 years.  She asked what the distinction was between a brownfield site and one which had not been developed.

The Planning Policy Team Leader referred to the definition of brownfield land in the NPPF.  For the purposes of the Brownfield Register, consideration had been given to the size threshold, whether the site was in the settlement hierarchy and was available and deliverable.  Sites were included in the register if they met these criteria.  The purpose of the register was to promote the sites and to give a strong indication that they should be developed.  However, a detailed assessment as to their viability would be required in connection with any planning application. 

Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones referred to sites in Cromer which were included on the register and expressed concern that residential use was considered to be acceptable in an existing commercial location in the town centre.

Councillor T Adams stated that he understood that the site owners had no plans to develop the site at the present time.

It was noted that the address of site BLR15 included in the Schedule (Appendix 1 to the agenda) should read “70 Holt Road, Fakenham”.

It was proposed by Councillor P Heinrich, duly seconded and

RESOLVED unanimously

1.          That the Brownfield Register be published with the 2019 updates.

2.          That the Council does not undertake Part 2 of the Brownfield Register.

The Planning Policy Team Leader presented a report which provided a précis of feedback submitted in response to the Regulation 18 consultation and explained the process for considering the responses as part of the finalisation of the Local Plan.  He stated that a summary of the feedback would be provided in hard copy for Members of the Working Party.  Relevant sections would also be presented with the agenda for future Working Party meetings when individual policies would be discussed.

Councillor Ms V Gay commented that it was not easy to read the summaries on iPads and the devices had their limitations when making notes.  She expressed concern that Members may not gather the drift of individual responses when they had been summarised through this electronic media.   She was also concerned that people would not receive individual replies to their responses.  She considered that these factors were not ideal in terms of giving members of the public confidence that their comments had been carefully considered.

The Planning Policy Team Leader explained the structure of the schedules and that detailed debate on the feedback would come back to future Working Party meetings along with a review of evidence and officer recommendations as part of the approach to the finalisations of each policy area.  The majority of the Schedules contained text as submitted.  Summaries of individual representations were only used in order to  remove repetition etc.  A paper copy of the full schedule appendix A-E was available to Members of the Working Party on request.

Members raised issues in respect of communication with the public.  In response, the Planning Policy Team Leader explained that a newsletter would be sent to everyone who had signed up to receive it and those who had submitted a response to the consultation.  He confirmed that agendas were publicly available and members of the public who wished to speak on any item could register to do so.  All comments had been added to the consultation portal, and schedules would be available through the portal and Working Party reports.

Councillor N Dixon considered that there was a need to ensure that people who had commented were able to see Officer responses and to be able to understand the process that had been followed in distilling their comments down into influencing factors and where those influences had been taken into account.

The Planning Policy Team Leader explained that the next stage of the process involved bringing back reports on policies and sites with relevant feedback for discussion, and it would then be transparent to the public as to how their comments had been taken into account when finalising policies.  The consultation statement would also detail how issues raised under the Regulation 18 consultation had been taken into account following future discussions in this Working Party.  However, it was not just public opinion which would influence the final policies as they had to be justified by evidence.  He drew attention to the recommendation before the Working Party to publish the schedules.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Officers will give a verbal update on the North Walsham delivery process.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a verbal update on progress on the North Walsham  Development Brief.  The purpose of the Brief was to take a comprehensive approach to the development and plan properly, effectively and robustly for the delivery of housing and infrastructure.

It had been agreed that NNDC would take leadership of the Brief, in close collaboration with Norfolk County Council (NCC), landowners, site promoters and developers, which would allow the degree of control required by Members. 

One of the next stages would be to reflect on the Local Plan consultation responses in relation to North Walsham and the issues raised would be taken on board through the Development Brief process.  Consideration would be given to further consultation specifically on the brief and the communication and engagement strategy would be scoped out in the coming months.

A Technical Delivery Group had been set up to take the work forward.  There was a great deal of technical work to complete and it would be necessary to draw heavily on expertise and experience from this Council’s officers and other partners.  A meeting had been held in October which had been well attended, and it was anticipated that the next meeting would take place at the end of January or early February, pending the outcome of a number of outstanding matters.  It was envisaged that the next two meetings would discuss matters relating to the highways and transport evidence base. 

The Senior Planning Officer stated that he was working on scoping the many workstreams, tasks and evidence that would be required in the next six months to inform the brief.  The work would be taken to the Technical Delivery Group for consideration but any important decisions would be made by the Working Party.

NNDC was working with NCC on commissioning a transport study and evidence base.  The outcome of a business rates pool bid to fund 50% of the cost of the transport study was awaited.  The remaining 50% would be match-funded equally by NNDC and NCC.  The study would be carried out by NCC’s transport consultants.  The Senior Planning Officer outlined the early stages of work which would be required to provide initial feasibility for the western link road.  The transport study report was expected in June/July and would feed into the technical group’s work with a detailed report on the transport study and next steps to be brought to the Working Party. 

In the meantime, work was taking place to produce the draft vision for the Development Brief and a report would be brought to the Working Party in due course.

An infrastructure position statement would be produced which would provide a clear steer on all infrastructure issues which would feed into the Development Brief and into discussions with landowners and developers so that all parties would know what was required.  A green infrastructure strategy would be prepared to ensure that green infrastructure, climate change and environmental principles were embodied into the process.

A funding strategy was being developed,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

This matter was considered as an item of urgent business.

The Planning Policy Team Leader gave a verbal update on neighbourhood plan work.

Ryburgh Neighbourhood Plan

A Habitats Regulations Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment were being carried out on behalf of Ryburgh Parish Council, following pre-submission consultation.  When the assessments were complete, it was anticipated that their conclusions would inform the preparation of the Plan for its final examination in the new year.

Blakeney Neighbourhood Plan

Officers had raised significant concerns in response to the pre-submission consultation.  In its current form, the Blakeney Neighbourhood Plan would be unlikely to pass examination without major modifications.  Whilst Officers had tried to engage with the Parish Council and Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group, they had generally not taken on board the comments that had been made.  Officers were trying to set up a meeting to explain the comments.

Holt

There had been indications that Holt was about to submit its Neighbourhood Plan.  Pre-submission consultation had taken place two years ago and advice had been given on submitting a Plan, but the content of the current version was not known.