To consider any questions or statements received from members of the public.
Mr Musson has requested to ask a question on behalf of the Coltishall & Horstead B1150 Special Interest Group
Minutes:
Mr Musson read out the following statement:
The North Walsham West development will have a huge impact on the quality of life of people living in villages along the B1150 corridor towards Norwich. This is broadly acknowledged and their concerns have received increasing media attention.
Local planning authorities are under a duty to cooperate with each other, and with other prescribed bodies, on strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries precisely because a decision in one council area can create shockwaves across a far wider area.
It is widely acknowledged that the present Highway infrastructure is woefully inadequate to meet the needs of the North Walsham West Development Brief. Strategic policy-making authorities should collaborate to identify the relevant strategic matters which they need to address in their plans. They should also engage with their local communities.
As far as the people of Coltishall and Horstead are concerned, this has simply not happened. Our local Councillor raised the matter at a recent meeting with you. We submitted a Freedom of Information request in mid-July asking for evidence of any and all cross-boundary discussions about this development. The legal deadline passed without any answer from you. An internal review was requested and still no response has been received. We were then advised to raise the matter with the Information Commissioner, a sad indictment in itself.
I am here today to ask two questions:
1) Have you or have you not complied with your legal obligations under the National Planning Framework to consult neighbouring bodies and communities about your plan?
2) Why are you flouting the clearly laid out Freedom of Information deadlines in responding to this question?
If you are unable to answer these questions here and now, then we can only leave it to those neighbouring authorities and communities, our local and national media, and the Planning Inspectorate to conclude that you failed to meet your legal duties to collaborate and consult and that you have something to hide in the way you have pursued your development plan. The people affected by this plan deserve better than that.
The Chairman invited Cllr A Brown, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enforcement and Chairman of the Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party to respond. Cllr Brown began by apologising for the delay in responding to Mr Musson’s Freedom of Information (FoI) request. He said that 95% of such requests were responded to within the required timescale and he was disappointed to learn that this had not been the case for Mr Musson. He then explained that the North Walsham West development was a large scheme and that was why the decision was made to prepare a development brief, where the consortium involved in the development worked with elected members, planning officers and other stakeholders on producing a guide or brief to the development. He said that this was an ongoing process and not yet complete. The intention was to consult with the public once it was finalised. He went onto say that NNDC’s Local Plan had been amended, following concerns raised regarding the impact of traffic flow at Coltishall. It had always been the intention that this would be resolved before the scheme could go forward. He explained that the Local Plan had always contained a requirement for a traffic impact assessment. This was underway and the result of this assessment would be published and there would be consultation with Broadland District Council on it. Following this, there would be a public meeting with the residents of Coltishall.
Mr Musson thanked him for his response. He said that the photograph that was displayed on the screen showed clearly how lorries were not able to pass on Station Road by the bridge, without mounting the pavement. He asked members if they would be prepared to let their children walk on the pavement in such circumstances.