Agenda item

The Planning Policy Team Leader presented a report which provided a précis of feedback submitted in response to the Regulation 18 consultation and explained the process for considering the responses as part of the finalisation of the Local Plan.  He stated that a summary of the feedback would be provided in hard copy for Members of the Working Party.  Relevant sections would also be presented with the agenda for future Working Party meetings when individual policies would be discussed.

Councillor Ms V Gay commented that it was not easy to read the summaries on iPads and the devices had their limitations when making notes.  She expressed concern that Members may not gather the drift of individual responses when they had been summarised through this electronic media.   She was also concerned that people would not receive individual replies to their responses.  She considered that these factors were not ideal in terms of giving members of the public confidence that their comments had been carefully considered.

The Planning Policy Team Leader explained the structure of the schedules and that detailed debate on the feedback would come back to future Working Party meetings along with a review of evidence and officer recommendations as part of the approach to the finalisations of each policy area.  The majority of the Schedules contained text as submitted.  Summaries of individual representations were only used in order to  remove repetition etc.  A paper copy of the full schedule appendix A-E was available to Members of the Working Party on request.

Members raised issues in respect of communication with the public.  In response, the Planning Policy Team Leader explained that a newsletter would be sent to everyone who had signed up to receive it and those who had submitted a response to the consultation.  He confirmed that agendas were publicly available and members of the public who wished to speak on any item could register to do so.  All comments had been added to the consultation portal, and schedules would be available through the portal and Working Party reports.

Councillor N Dixon considered that there was a need to ensure that people who had commented were able to see Officer responses and to be able to understand the process that had been followed in distilling their comments down into influencing factors and where those influences had been taken into account.

The Planning Policy Team Leader explained that the next stage of the process involved bringing back reports on policies and sites with relevant feedback for discussion, and it would then be transparent to the public as to how their comments had been taken into account when finalising policies.  The consultation statement would also detail how issues raised under the Regulation 18 consultation had been taken into account following future discussions in this Working Party.  However, it was not just public opinion which would influence the final policies as they had to be justified by evidence.  He drew attention to the recommendation before the Working Party to publish the schedules.  The team would then consider the programme of work going forward and bring it to the Working Party.

The Planning Policy Team Leader outlined a number of policy issues which had been raised through the consultation.  These were referred to in the Officer’s report.

Councillor Ms V Gay stated that some of the environmental comments had raised issues that were already dealt with in the draft Plan but people had not found them.  She considered that there was an argument for drawing issues together.

The Planning Policy Team Leader stated that national policies were moving fast and many of the statutory comments related to guidance which had been issued following the publication of the draft Plan.  Many of the issues were mentioned in the draft Plan but officers felt that there was scope for references to be strengthened and consolidated.

Councillor P Heinrich referred to the diversity of opinion between developers and the public and asked how developers could be persuaded that they should develop the west side of North Walsham rather than push for other sites where they could maximise their profits.  He asked if there would be demand to build in North Walsham when developers were not building on sites in the town on which they had already secured planning permission.

The Planning Policy Team Leader explained that there would always be a tension between developers promoting their land interests and the Council which was promoting plan-led growth.  Distribution of growth was an issue which would be considered by the Working Party in due course.  In considering the responses to the Local Plan consultation, it would be necessary to take into account the evidence and priorities for NNDC in bringing forward the most appropriate strategy to address need in North Walsham and the District as a whole.

Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones asked if the large proposals in Fakenham and North Walsham were decided by NNDC or whether the public had been asked if they supported the large developments. 

The Planning Policy Team Leader stated that the consultation position in respect of housing numbers and distribution had been agreed at previous meetings of the Working Party and consulted on as part of the Local Plan consultation.  It would now be necessary to reflect upon the feedback received  to ensure that the distribution and numbers were appropriate. However, there were a number of policies that would influence those considerations and which would need discussion before the matter was brought back to the Working Party.  Concerns had been raised by the public regarding large developments, but there was also a recognition that growth was accepted in North Walsham provided there were infrastructure improvements, including the link road.

Councillor Mrs Grove-Jones stated that poor infrastructure appeared to be the overriding problem and the new link road had not yet been ratified.

Councillor Ms V Gay considered that the concerns that had been raised regarding large growth in low value areas was germane as developers could argue that there was insufficient viability to provide the infrastructure, green infrastructure, biodiversity etc that would be required.

The Planning Policy Team Leader explained that affordable housing policies in the Local Plan identified lower value areas where there was lower viability than in the high value coastal areas.  It was within the Council’s gift to alter the viability requirement but it had to be informed by policies and evidence, and an awareness that any additional requirements in the Local Plan had to be costed. 

Councillor Dixon stated that delivery of the Local Plan was outside this authority's control as market forces would influence which sites came forward and in what order.  He considered that lessons had been learned from the previous Local Plan that there were measures that could be used to strengthen the new Local Plan but market forces would still prevail.

The Planning Policy Team Leader outlined the key issues which had been raised in respect of specific sites.  He reported that the Highway Authority had been given until 11 December to make detailed comments and a meeting had been arranged to get their comments. 

The Working Party expressed concern at the lack of co-operation from the Highway Authority and it was proposed by Councillor Ms Gay that the Chairman write formally to the Highway Authority to express the Working Party’s dismay and growing frustration at its lack of co-operation.

Councillor Mrs Grove-Jones asked if any developers had expressed an interest in developing in North Walsham.

The Planning Policy Team Leader stated that those who already had interests in the land had done so.

Councillor Mrs Grove-Jones stated that the impact of climate change, receding coastline, increased rainfall and drainage issues needed to be taken into account when considering development sites.

The Planning Policy Team Leader stated that permeable surfacing would be a requirement and there were policies on coastal adaptation.  All sites identified in the initial distribution of growth were in Flood Zone 1, which was the lowest risk.  The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment evidence included allowances for climate change and the mapping was used in the Local Plan and also published online.

The Chairman asked for clarification as to meaning of “publication” in the recommendation.

The Planning Policy Team Leader explained that permission was sought to publish the schedule of representations as an interim document.  It would form part of the consultation in its final form.

Councillor N Dixon proposed the Officer’s recommendation as published in the report.  This was seconded by Councillor P Fisher.

RESOLVED unanimously

1.          That the contents of the report be noted and the Planning Policy Manager be authorised to make final adjustments to the schedule of representations and publish.

2.          That the Chairman write formally to the Highway Authority to express the Working Party’s dismay and growing frustration at its lack of co-operation.