Agenda item

The Planning Policy Manager presented an update report on the progress of the Norfolk Strategic Planning Framework following a recent review and recommended that the Council formally endorses a revised document, subject to the modification of Agreement 10 as outlined in the report.  He also recommended the amendment of recommendation 1 set out in the report by the addition of the words “… as an interim statement pending further review.”

Councillor J Punchard referred to Agreement 19 and stated that he was pleased that the agreement included mobile technologies.  However, NNDC had invested heavily in better broadband but the Agreement did not mention better broadband for rural Norfolk on a County-wide basis.

The Planning Policy Manager stated that the supporting text to the Agreement included broadband but agreed that it could be worthwhile to include it within the Agreement.

Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones expressed doubts that some of the matters contained in the Agreements would come to fruition. 

Councillor Mrs Grove-Jones questioned the inclusion of Egmere Business Zone as a Tier 1 Employment Site in Agreement 8 as she considered that this was not being pursued by NNDC.

As background, Councillor Ms K Ward explained that there had been no sites Tier 1 sites in the first version of the Framework and it had been agreed that Egmere and Scottow should be included.

The Planning Policy Manager advised that if Egmere was no longer of strategic significance the Working Party could either recommend its deletion or wait until a more substantive review of the Framework had taken place and make representations as to its removal at that time.

The Working Party discussed whether or not Egmere should be deleted from Agreement 10.  It was noted that a report on the future of Egmere would be discussed at Cabinet later in the week. 

Councillor N Dixon referred to possible interest in the site for seaweed processing.  Egmere was currently designated as an Enterprise Zone and enjoyed certain benefits from that designation.  He considered that there would be no benefit from removing Tier 1 status.

Councillor Ms K Ward suggested that the Agreement needed to be considered in the context of the wider document.  Tier 1 employment land was related to the Local Enterprise Partnership and extensive external investment.  She considered that it would not be problematic for Egmere to remain until the substantive review of the Framework had taken place.

Councillor N Dixon considered that the severity of water shortage issues had not been adequately reflected in Agreements 17, 18 and 22.  This was a County-wide issue and permanent damage was being done to wetlands from rising demand for domestic and agricultural use.  He considered that these Agreements should be strengthened.  He considered that the conclusion was deficient in that it did not reflect the current environmental impact of increased demand which exceeded supply and it was not going to improve.  There was a major infrastructure issue.  He considered that the Authority should put a marker down in the interim report that there was a problem and that further work was needed to scope it out and reflect it in more detail.

Councillor R Kershaw stated that he had been working with an abstraction group and NNDC had joined Water Resources East to look at the issues.  He explained that evidence was being sought with regard to water levels.  The evidence provided by water abstraction licence holders was that water levels were well below the Environment Agency statistics.  DEFRA was reluctant to respond or send a representative to look at the issue.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett stated that abstraction had been raised with the Strategic Director of the Environment Agency, who had thought the issue of abstraction licences had been resolved by the Association of Drainage Authorities.  He had undertaken to check the situation.

Councillor Ms K Ward stated that Anglian Water and the Environment Agency had attended a Strategic Forum meeting where all strategic partners had agreed that the water problem was not being taken seriously enough.  Anglian Water was being lobbied to do more.

Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones asked if there was a move to require grey water recycling facilities in new build developments.

The Planning Policy Manager explained that Building Regulations covered all aspects of construction with a national set of prescribed standards.  Building Regulations were reviewed on an ongoing basis and they would improve.  He suggested that agreement 17 could be made subject to water efficiency standards of not more than 110 litres per person per day and subject to the next review including a comprehensive review of water use and water supply.

Councillor J Punchard considered that the document did not recognise the gravitas of the water situation as a whole, not only with regard to use and recycling, but also surface water flooding which had increased dramatically over the last 20 years.

The Planning Policy Team Leader explained that 110 litres per person per day was the current maximum prescribed by Building Regulations.  It did not prevent the Council’s policies going further but there were financial implications for developers in doing so.

The Planning Policy Manager suggested that representations be made that version 3 of the Framework would be expected to include a specific new agreement on the management and use of water.

Councillor N Dixon supported the suggestion and considered that the conclusion should be tailored so that there was a clear message that something should be done.  He considered that the problem was not with Anglian Water, but with the Environment Agency and DEFRA.  He considered that mitigation measures should be considered wherever possible but it would not solve the problem.  There was a need to support the Council’s recognition of climate change and its implications.

Councillor R Kershaw supported Councillor Dixon’s views.  He had attended a water resources conference where the use of grey water for agriculture was discussed.  However, supermarkets were reluctant as it had a higher phosphate content than potable water.  He added that the Environment Agency was pumping 1.3 megalitres of clean water into the North Sea which equated to the water shortage problem.

Councillor J Rest asked if the Planning Policy Manager considered that Agreement 2 was robust enough.  He considered that the timescale was too long and that measurable targets were needed.

The Planning Policy Manager considered that it would be reasonable to express concerns that the vision as drafted lacked measurable outcomes and was not specific enough.

The Planning Policy Team Leader explained that the agreement referred to the Local Plan as a vehicle to deliver the vision.  He considered that targets should be set out in Local Plans.

The Chairman suggested that the lack of measurable targets should be raised as a matter for discussion at the next Duty to Co-operate Forum meeting.

It was proposed by Councillor N Dixon, seconded by Councillor Dr C Stockton and

RESOLVED

1.   That the Norfolk Strategic Planning Framework and Statement of Common Ground 2019 and the Agreements contained therein are endorsed by North Norfolk District Council subject to the modification of Agreement 10 as outlined in the report as an interim statement pending further review.

2.   That the Council supports and welcomes the commitment to continued co-operative working and periodic review of the framework and in particular would support further collective work in relation to climate change.

3.    That the Council requests that the next version of the document should deal with water issues as a topic area.

4.    That the Council requests that the reference to better broadband be strengthened.

5.    That the lack of measurable targets be raised as a matter for discussion at the next Duty to Co-operate Forum.