Agenda item

1. The PPM introduced the Officers report and recommendation, noting that a significant proportion of the homes proposed in the Local Plan would be achieved through the North Walsham West Development (NWWD). Should the Inspector consider the NWWD unviable, it was expected the whole Plan would fail. The PPM advised, to demonstrate to the Inspector that the NWWD was achievable, a development brief must be prepared, and this would require significant resourcing from the Local Authority and the Consortium.

The PPM confirmed Members were asked to consider the consultation arrangements and not the brief itself. He did not intend to present the full development brief to Members till after the public consultation, though would present a draft version at the next Working Party for endorsement of the public consultation only. He commented that the Consultation arrangements proposed was broadly similar to the Consultation for the Local Plan, with a timetable of events set out in the agenda pack.

2. Cllr P Heinrich stated he was not opposed the NWWD provided specific criteria were met. He expressed serious concern that the Working Party, nor Local Members had, to date, been provided with the proposed development brief, further North Walsham Members had not had any real input into the brief despite asking 4 years ago to be involved. He considered that the brief would therefore effectively be a creature of the Consortium, given the limited input from Members. With respect of the proposed timetable, Cllr P Heinrich detailed his reservations that the majority of the consultation would take place in August when the public may be on holiday and unable to fully engage with the process.  He considered it more appropriate that the consultation be pushed back to September and early October, else the Council be accused of arranging a nominal consultation only and not a detailed evaluation of the scheme by residents.

As Local Member, and without having seen the development brief, Cllr P Heinrich stressed the critical importance of the Cromer Road linking to the Industrial Estate which had been debated in full by the Working Party and at North Walsham Town Council. Additionally, as Portfolio Holder for Economic growth he noted the economic benefits which would be enabled through the link road, in an area of the district with limited employment land.  Cllr P Heinrich affirmed that the road would be at a considerable cost with estimates of 21 million, likely only go up, and commented that he would like to see that this matter be looked at totally independently.

Whilst not opposed to the consultation in principle, Cllr P Heinrich considered the timing was wrong, and affirmed that the Working Party and Local Members needed to have seen and understood the development brief before commencement of the consultation. 

3. Cllr V Holliday agreed that the proposed timeline was inappropriate, falling in August, and expressed her concern over the use of a flyer for a complex subject matter requiring high levels of detail. Further, she noted not all residents were online, and some may not read leaflets coming through the post, therefore a multifaceted approach was required. Cllr V Holliday argued that a hard copy of the survey should be sent to all North Walsham residents to ensure maximum participation, and that she was currently unconvinced with that proposed.

4. Cllr N Dixon stated he was sympathetic with the views raised by Cllr P Heinrich and sought confirmation when the development brief would be available, and when this would be a complete piece of work. He stated it was important that this be published in good time to ensure everyone could consider, digest and understand its contents, only then would individuals be able to participate in a meaningful consultation.  Cllr N Dixon suggested extending the end date by another 3 weeks to increase participation.

5. The PPM stated it would be beneficial to make available to the Inspector a development brief which had been subject to public consultation by the time examination hearings commence. The further along the process, the better the delivery credentials of the NWWD scheme would be. Officers had worked backwards from an expected examination date (end of September) to achieve a consulted upon brief. The PPM conceded that Members were being asked to go out to consultation on something they had not seen and accepted Members concerns. He advised that the development brief would have been tabled at the meeting, had it been complete, but there was still work ongoing and it was anticipated that the brief would be presented at the next meeting of the Working Party. Before the next meeting he confirmed he would arrange meetings with the Local Member’s to ensure they had early sight of the brief ahead of the Working Party Meeting. The PPM acknowledged the NWWD development brief and consultation required a significant amount of work, and he was keen to get an indication from Members how to proceed. Subject to approval at the August Working Party to go out to consultation, the PPM commented it would be reasonable to start the consultation process in the middle of August and extend through to the end of September, pending engagement with Local Members and Members more broadly before the meeting, with the PPM noting that there was winder interest for NWWD. Should the brief be unavailable for the August meeting, the timetable would need to shift.

6. Cllr W Fredericks asked, as Chairman of the Health and Wellbeing partnership for North Norfolk, if the brief would detail what accompanying infrastructure would feature within the development including water, schools and doctors surgeries. She asked that the Health and Wellbeing partnership be consulted on the NWWD development brief.

7. The PPM advised the latest version was over 100 pages, though commented this would be edited down before publication, and would comprehensively cover all aspects set out by Cllr W Fredericks. The PPM stressed that the development brief was an intermediate document, not a planning application, setting out the principle for development. The consultation would be made available to all the relevant health organisations, and other key stakeholders, who would be able to contribute to a final draft. 

8. Cllr P Heinrich thanked the PPM for his compromised solution in delaying the consultation period to avoid the summer season and to enable Members to meet with the PPM to see and discuss the draft brief.

9. Cllr J Toye queried whether one half day in person afternoon and evening event would be sufficient, given working people’s availability. Additionally, he commented the use of QR codes could be proliferated across the documents to increase information sharing.

10. The PPM noted the practical and mechanical issues raised by Members with regard the consultation, which he considered to be useful modifications to be factored in to the revised timetable. The PPM considered he had been provided clear guidance as to Member’s current position, and pragmatically recommended Members defer further consideration of the NWWD and consultation until the next meeting. The PPM stressed he would not ask Member’s to endorse the content of the brief till after a public consultation exercise, rather be would seek confirmation Members were comfortable to go out to consultation.

11. The Chairman asked whether the drafted flyers would be seen by Members before being made available. He stated he would not be comfortable endorsing the publication of the flyer without reviewing its contents. As a Local Member for North Walsham he understood the depth of feeling from residents. The Chairman commented it would be crazy for Members to agree to a consultation without first seeing the brief.

12. The PPM confirmed flyers would not be dispatched till Members had seen them. He advised most of the content of the flyer would remain unchanged should the recommendation be deferred till the following month. Significant resource would go into the design of the flyer and of the public documents, this preparation could be done in advance of the next meeting.

13. Cllr N Dixon proposed deferment, Cllr J Toye seconded.

IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED

That the item be deferred to the next meeting of the Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party.