Agenda item

      i.        The PPM introduced the officer’s report and presentation for the Annual Monitoring report (AMR), included on the agenda. He outlined the purpose of the AMR and highlighted key figures and indicators detailed in the report with relation to housing.

Notably, the Council’s target of 400 dwellings being granted in the district per year had not been met, with 175 dwellings granted either Full or Outline permission between 1^st April 2022 and 31^st March 2023. The PPM stated this was an incredibly low figure which could be attributed to the impact of Nutrient Neutrality, and the age of the current Local Plan. Those larger sites in the Local Plan had been granted permission and built out, leading to a reliance on small developments, Barn Conversions and Change of Use. The Councils target of 100 affordable homes per annum had also been impacted, with only 24 granted permission in the outlined period. The PPM expected that permissions granted would remain low for the next 2 years till issues were resolved and advised that this would have an impact on the Councils 5-year Housing Land supply (HLS)

     ii.        Cllr L Paterson asked if the Council were at risk of a predatory application by consequence of its 5-year HSL position.

    iii.        The PPM advised without a 5-year HLS the Council would need to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. In turn, developers and landowners may choose to make applications on unallocated development sites. In this situation the Council in its determinations must decide if an application were nevertheless sustainable.

   iv.        The ADP advised that over 140 applications were in abeyance due to Nutrient Neutrality in the district. This issue did not apply to the whole district and there were many areas of the district which remained unaffected.

     v.        Cllr J Toye asked if the number of applications had declined.

   vi.        The PPM advised there had been a decrease in applications, in part because developers were put off by the costs associated in preparing and making applications whilst Nutrient Neutrality was stymieing development.

  vii.        The ADP confirmed that bio-diversity net gain changes had now been timetabled by central government. He noted that some may seek to submit applications before the implementation date.

 viii.        Cllr P Heinrich acknowledged the difficult situation the Council was in and expressed his concern that that lack of 5-year HLS would lead to predatory applications. He asked if/when the Nutrient Neutrality situation may be resolved.

   ix.        The ADP outlined various means in which Nutrient Neutrality may be resolved including by government resolution, resolution by individual developers, development of a credit scheme, or focusing of development outside of affected areas. He acknowledged the challenges with each method.

     x.        Cllr N Dixon recognised the lack of the 5-year HLS and the impact of Nutrient Neutrality. He stated that the Council had endeavoured to do all that it could within its powers, but that Nutrient Neutrality was outside of its control. Cllr N Dixon asked how a Planning Inspector may consider developments and the tests it may apply.

   xi.        The PPM confirmed that the Council wrote to government when Nutrient Neutrality guidance was issued, stating that should the government stand with the plan lead system they should then disapply the presumption in favour of sustainable development for those authorities impacted by Nutrient Neutrality. The PPM advised he was not aware that any reply had been received. He confirmed that it was a matter for members to form their determination on the merits of each specific application, and whether to depart from guidance where circumstances are such that a development is unsuitable. The PPM advised there would be risks associated with refusing developments whilst the Council could not demonstrate a 5-year HSL and cautioned that detailed advise should be received before forming decisions. Members in their considerations may choose to attribute weight to the emerging Local Plan if it was considered that it may be swiftly adopted.

  xii.        The ADP confirmed that the Council held a strong record at appeal. Recently appellants for smaller developments had argued the Council could not demonstrate a 5-year HLS, however this had not persuaded the Planning Inspectorate, given that 1 or 2 sites would not close the housing gap. The ADP advised that there would be several larger applications expected before Development Committee in the coming months, which may be more challenging.

 xiii.        Cllr N Dixon thanked officers for their advice and affirmed that he did not consider this a black or white matter.

 xiv.        The Chairman spoke positively of the Council’s Core Strategy, emerging Local Plan, appeal record, and competency of Members at Development Committee.

  xv.        The PPM confirmed the Council’s appeal record had been good in the unselected settlements, representing unsustainable growth. He considered there to be a clear distinction between development of 50 houses in the countryside on the edge of village, on the edge of a town, or on a site allocated in the emerging Local Plan. Such circumstances should inform decision making.

With respect of completions the PPM advised these were also below target, with further falls expected in coming years. Permissions granted traditionally ran higher than completions, with a time lag from consent being granted to a development being built out.

The PPM outlined the housing trajectory moving forward and the expectation of housing supply with the emerging Local Plan.  He further confirmed the housing supply situation should the emerging Local Plan not be adopted and reiterated the importance of the Local Plan.

The PPM offered a breakdown of bedroom mix on housing completions.

 xvi.        Cllr P Heinrich asked if mapping was available where the 4 & 5-bedroom properties were located in the district.

xvii.        The PPM advised the data was available and could be broken down by parish, he advised he would be happy to take Cllr P Henrich’s request away and circulate this information in due course.

The PPM noted the proportion of growth, with the majority of development centred on larger settlements. It was his expectation that in future 500 dwellings would be required per year.

xviii.        Cllr J Punchard stated it would be useful for a breakdown of windfall development and where these could be attributed.

 xix.        The PPM confirmed that the total figure provided in the presentation was for selected sites and windfall allowances. He advised he could separate out the figures if this was of interest.

With respect of population, the PPM affirmed that the district had an elderly and aging population, hence policies detailed in the emerging Local Plan for specialist age type accommodation. He confirmed that North Norfolk was amongst the highest proportion of elderly people compared against the rest of the UK.

The ratio of income to house prices had continued to rapidly rise in the district, with homes on average 11.44 x the average income for a starter home, in part, because wages had remained steady whilst house prices had increased and accelerated during the pandemic. He noted that earnings had increased in the last few months and reports of house prices starting to fall. Regardless, he commented that houses prices in North Norfolk would likely continue to remain unaffordable.

  xx.        Cllr N Dixon asked how the 11.44 figure compared with other areas.

 xxi.        The PPM advised the figure was above average nationally, though not near the top.

The PPM outlined the full scope of the AMR and confirmed it would be published shortly.

xxii.        Cllr J Toye expressed his thanks to officers for their work.

xxiii.        The Chairman echoed his thanks for the tremendous amount of work undertaken.

Members noted the officer’s report.