Minutes:
Two members of the public presented statements (summarised below) to the Working Party.
Clive Albany presented his objection to recommended site BLA04 and support for BLA01/A as an alternative allocation on the following grounds:
1. External Landscape Consultancy reports which had been commissioned and submitted post publication of the Draft Local Plan to support the objections to BLA04/A. No balanced consideration seems to have been given to the reports and conclusions. The Council has not undertaken an independent landscape review to justify the preferred site allocation. Factual inaccuracies have been identified within the Draft Plan in the site description and appraisals of BLA04/A, which brought into question the soundness of the plan and selection of the site. The commissioned reports concurred that BLA01/A would be less conspicuous and have less visual impact in the landscape.
2. The current Local Plan recommended BLA01/A as the preferred site and specifically discarded BLA04/A, quoting that BLA04 would be “highly visible” and have a “higher landscape impact that BLA01. The previous plan also stated that development on BLA01/A was “well contained and any development would not sprawl into the wider landscape”. Recommending BLA04/A is not consistent with previous site allocations for Blakeney and brings into question the soundness of the Plan.
3. The composition of the Working Party has changed significantly since it undertook a site visit to Blakeney. The Policy Officer has indicated that the selection of the preferred site is finely balanced and Councillors should not endorse the recommendation without fully considering the landscape impact of BLA04/A.
4. BLA01/A is the strategic logical choice for when the next Local Plan is being worked through. The site would be able to take many more houses using the road infrastructure that would be established without adversely impacting on the landscape. This is not the case with BLA04/A as ribbon development on BLA04 will be extremely noticeable when entering Blakeney from the south or south east. It will have significant impacts on the view of Grade I listed St Nicholas Church.
Rob Snowling presented a supporting statement in respect of C10/1.
1. In response to feedback from the Regulation 18 consultation and further information from the Education Authority that a new primary school would not be required, the scheme had been revised to provide a high quality landscape led scheme comprising extensive areas of enhanced public open space and green infrastructure, extra care accommodation and approximately 55 new homes (including 35% affordable homes and bungalows).
2. A thorough assessment of the site’s landscape context and response to feedback had informed the revised scheme, which included a large area of open space along the site frontage to provide a green gateway on the western edge of Cromer whilst maintaining clear separation between Cromer and East Runton.
3. A lower density scheme with significant reduction in the number of homes meant that additional planting could be provided throughout.
4. The revised scheme provides for a network of interconnected green spaces, incorporating existing public rights of way and new footpath links.
5. There would be net biodiversity gain through retention of existing habitat and provision of new green infrastructure, extensive tree planting and enhancement of existing landscape features to benefit wildlife.
6. Approximately 5 ha. of enhanced public open space and green infrastructure (over 60% of the site) will be provided, including provision of allotments.
7. Extra care accommodation will help meet the identified needs for specialist accommodation in Cromer and the surrounding area. It will be highly accessible with good existing links between the site and town centre.
8. The environmental assessment had confirmed that the proximity of the Cromer Water Recycling Centre (WRC) and railway line do not present a constraint to delivery of the scheme. Anglian Water has subsequently confirmed that the environmental assessment provided sufficient information in relation to odour from the WRC and further investigation is not required.
Written questions had been received from Teresa Cole regarding Cromer C10/1 which would be addressed under that item.