An apology for absence was received from Councillor G Mancini-Boyle.  One substitute Member attended as shown above.

None.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Working Party held on 19 July 2021.

The Minutes of a meeting of the Working Party held on 19 July 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.

None.

The Planning Policy Manager presented a report that summarised the provisions of the new National Planning Policy Framework and its implications for Plan Making and Development Management.  The changes were already incorporated into the draft Local Plan, having been widely publicised previously by the Government.

The Chairman considered that it was encouraging that a number of the measures in the new NPPF had been taken into account in the draft Local Plan.  He referred to local concerns with regard to the potential threat to the AONB from the extension of ‘pop-up’ campsites from 28 to 56 days and noted that some Local Authorities had imposed Article 4 directions on a wide geographical area.  He asked if Article 4 directions related to the built environment only or if they would cover campsites.

The Planning Policy Manager explained that Article 4 directions were very targeted and should not be used to re-impose blanket controls over a wide geographical area to negate permitted development in that area.  The Government had introduced the 56 day allowance for campsites in response to the economic impacts of the pandemic and had chosen not to exclude AONBs and other designations.  It would be necessary to demonstrate that the harmful impact of campsites on the AONB justified the use of Article 4 directions.

Councillor J Toye asked if it would be possible to write a local guide to what would be acceptable to this Authority under Paragraph 80 of the NPPF relating to isolated dwellings.

The Planning Policy Manager explained that there were a number of options, from a guidance note for officers to supplementary planning guidance, but all carried less weight than a specific policy in the Local Plan.  Whether a development was ‘truly outstanding’ was a subjective matter and he considered that it would be appropriate for the Development Committee to consider the merits of such proposals on a case by case basis.  Whilst it was an issue that could be debated, he questioned whether the use of time and resources in producing a guide could be justified given the small number of applications that were received under that provision. 

The Chairman suggested that an amendment could be made to the Design Guide to cover this issue.

Councillor Ms V Gay stated that the Council had an excellent Design Guide that had recently been rewritten and the important issue was how it was interpreted and understood.  She suggested that a further presentation be given on the Design Guide for all Members, as newer Members would not be familiar with it.

The Planning Policy Manager explained that the Design Guide was still a working draft and had not yet been finalised.  The Local Plan had to take priority but he was happy to add this suggestion to the work programme if required.  The Chairman agreed that it would be useful to consider this at the end of the Local Plan process.

Councillor P Heinrich referred to the sustainable development section and asked if it could be strengthened  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

The Chairman stated that there was a need to be mindful that the Local Plan had to progress to the next stage as soon as possible.

The Planning Policy Manager presented an update report and recommended changes to the Small Growth Villages policy.

The Chairman requested that the size threshold be clarified as paragraph 3(f) did not give an upper limit, whereas the report referred to sites up to 1 hectare, and that ‘small scale incremental growth’ in paragraph 3(c) be given consideration as it was open to interpretation.  He asked if it should also be made clear in the policy and text that neighbourhood plans took precedence in cases where they were in conflict with the proposed policy.

The Planning Policy Manager agreed that reference to a 1 hectare upper limit would be a useful addition to the policy.

With regard to neighbourhood plans, the Planning Policy Manager stated that potential areas of conflict with many of the policies could emerge as neighbourhood plans were drafted and a decision would need to be made as to which strands of policy took precedence.  In practice, priority would be given to neighbourhood plans that had gone through due process and to which the Authority had not raised an objection, and he suggested that explanatory text should be added at the front of the Local Plan to explain the relationship between the Local Plan and neighbourhood planning, rather than modify each policy.

The Chairman agreed that a general policy elsewhere in the Plan would be acceptable but considered that a footnote should be inserted in this particular policy to refer the reader to the general remarks.  The Planning Policy Manager stated that he would take this matter on board.

Councillor N Pearce stated that there was a desperate need to build social housing for local people who could not afford market housing and that protection should be built into the Local Plan as it was not possible to legislate against second homes.  He considered that time limits should be placed on sites between .25 ha. and 1 ha. in order to prevent land banking by landowners and to assist Housing Associations who wanted to build on them.

Councillor P Heinrich suggested that the addition of the words ‘...the site abuts the development boundary and does not exceed 1 ha. in size’ to paragraph 3a would address the size threshold issue in the policy.

Councillor N Dixon considered that there was potential for Hoveton and Wroxham to take a disproportionate share of growth if they were both seen as growth towns by their respective authorities, and it was important that they were treated appropriately.  There was a confusion of terms with Hoveton being described as a Small Growth Town in some places, whereas elsewhere it was described as a Large Village and he considered that there was scope for further clarification. 

The Planning Policy Manager explained that Hoveton was not a Small Growth Village and did not sit within this policy.  Land beyond  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

The Chairman agreed that Councillor N Pearce could raise the following matter.

Councillor Pearce considered that it would be helpful for Members to consider the Council’s social housing policy from the developer’s perspective.  There was a high level of housing need in the District and needs were constantly changing.  He requested that a meeting be arranged or an item placed on a future agenda to look at these issues.

The Planning Policy Manager stated that joint workshops with housing colleagues took place on a fairly regular basis, and housing associations had been involved in developing housing strategies.  He considered that a session could be arranged for Members to look at the practical issues around delivery of affordable housing if they wished to do so.

The Chairman suggested that a statement of common ground could be drawn up so that developers were aware of the Council’s requirements when submitting planning applications.

The Planning Policy Manager stated that he was aware of a request to consider issues around the first homes provision in the NPPF and the implications for affordable housing generally.  He was happy to discuss with the Housing Strategy and Delivery Manager regarding a general update and to pick up some of the more targeted issues at a specific meeting.  There could be an opportunity to invite housing providers to give their perspective on the Council’s policies at a workshop session.

Councillor J Toye stated that he was concerned that affordable housing was lost when additional costs impacted on viability, with no adverse impact on the developer’s profit.  He considered that it would be beneficial for developers and the Council to understand each other’s situation and to look at how the burden could be shared.

The Chairman considered that an update on viability issues would be useful in conjunction with the issues raised by Councillor Pearce.