Agenda item

Summary:		To identify the final suite of allocations for Briston/Melton Constable, Cromer and Blakeney ahead of Regulation 19 Consultation and subsequent submission.
Recommendations:	1.     It is recommended that Members endorse the identified sites for inclusion in the Local Plan.   2.     The final policy wording is delegated to the Planning Policy Manager.
Cabinet Member(s)			Ward(s) affected
All Members			All Wards
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:   Mark Ashwell, Planning Policy Manager, 01263 516325, mark.ashwell@north-norfolk.gov.uk Iain Withington Planning Policy Team Leader  01263 516034, Iain.Withington@north-norfolk.gov.uk

 

The Planning Policy Manager presented the report and site assessment booklets relating to proposed allocations for Briston/Melton Constable, Cromer and Blakeney.  He outlined the main issues relating to each settlement and recommended sites for inclusion in the Local Plan, ahead of Regulation 19 consultation and subsequent submission.  

 

Briston/Melton Constable

 

Councillor A Brown stated that the relief of traffic congestion which would arise from the development of the preferred sites would be of considerable benefit to Briston.  He was not aware of any objections from either Briston or Melton Constable Parish Councils.

 

Councillor J Punchard asked if there would be a comment in the document regarding work being done by the Norfolk Orbital Railway Group which was trying to link the railway from Holt to Fakenham and back to Dereham.  Land to the north of Briston would be required for the railway line.

 

The Planning Policy Manager stated that it was not appropriate to include it as a caveat to the site allocations, but reference could be made in the Local Plan document that development should not prejudice the railway line.

 

Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones asked if site 102/A was liable to come forward in the future as it would accommodate a large number of dwellings.

 

The Planning Policy Manager stated that a decision on site 102/A was for the next plan.  The recommended sites would provide enough growth for the next 15 to 20 years.

 

RECOMMENDED unanimously

 

1.     That the following sites be included in the Local Plan:

 

Site Ref	Description	Gross Area (ha)	Indicative Dwellings
BRI01	Land East of Astley Primary School	1.43	40
BRI02	Land West of Astley Primary School	2	40

 

2.     That the final policy wording is delegated to the Planning Policy Manager.

 

 

Blakeney

 

The Planning Policy Manager addressed the issues raised by Mr Albany in respect of BLA04/A and his suggested alternative BLA01.  He stated that the recommended site would have a landscape impact, but BLA01 was also visible from Langham Road.  Both sites contributed positively to the landscape and development on either site would have a landscape impact.  With regard to BLA01, the Highway Authority had indicated that vehicular access onto Morston Road could not be achieved, nor would it deliver the necessary visibility splays and BLA05 would have to be crossed to provide access to Langham Road.  The lower part of BLA01 was relatively unobtrusive in the landscape, but development on the upper part of the site would be highly visible, although the impact could be mitigated if it were given over to landscaping.  On balance, BLA04/A was preferred due to the access requirements.

 

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr Albany explained how he considered that the development of BLA01 would provide safe connections to the village and how it could enable small scale development going forward into the next Local Plan.  He considered that the development would sit well in the landscape if suitably designed.

 

Councillor Ms K Ward, the local Member, stated that the highway issue had been raised when BLA01 had been considered previously and she recalled that there had also been an issue regarding deliverability. 

 

The Planning Policy Manager explained that BLA01 had been a strong contender in the early stages but it had been concluded that it was undeliverable due to access issues.  Access onto Morston Road could not be achieved without third party land.  It was also unlikely that the provision of a roadway would be financially viable for a developer given the modest amount of development.

 

Councillor Ms Ward stated that the Parish Council was supportive of both BLA01 and BLA04/A.  It recognised that both had challenges in terms of landscape.  However, the primary concern of the Parish Council and Blakeney Neighbourhood Housing was the provision of social housing, for which there was a desperate need.  It was essential that the allocated site would be deliverable, not just in terms of access but also its availability and the willingness of the landowner to bring it forward.

 

Councillor D Baker considered that Mr Albany had made a sensible point.  The situation was finely balanced.  He considered that a site which could provide connections to the village was the right site, and that the landscape assessment was key to making a decision.  There was an opportunity to put a site in the right place for the long term, provided that it was deliverable, appropriate in the landscape and the access was correct.

 

The Chairman stated that there was concern that the access issue had not been fully explored with the Highway Authority.

 

The Planning Policy Manager advised the Working Party that if Members wanted further investigation of the access issues in relation to BLA01 and considered that landscape issues had not been fully addressed, it might be appropriate to defer consideration, although he was reluctant to recommend it.

 

The Chairman proposed the Officer’s recommendation to include site BLA/04 in the Local Plan.

 

On being put to the vote, the proposal was declared lost with 2 Members voting in favour and 7 against.

 

It was proposed, seconded and

 

RECOMMENDED by 7 votes to 2

 

1.     That the following site is included in the Local Plan:

 

Site Ref	Description	Gross Area (ha)	Indicative Dwellings
BLA01/A	Land South of Morston Road	2.90	85

 

2.     That site BLA/04 is removed from the Local Plan.

 

3.     That the final policy wording is delegated to the Planning Policy Manager.

 

 

 

Cromer

 

The Planning Policy Manager displayed on screen an email that had been received from Teresa Cole raising a number of questions, summarised below, to which he responded briefly and undertook to provide a full response to Mrs Cole following the meeting.

 

1.     How is the extra care facility of 50-60 units, plus 55 dwellings, seen as a reduced number from the original 90 and will it impact on the proposed ‘enhanced public space’ areas?

 

This relates to the change referred to by Mr Snowling.  The scheme for 90 dwellings plus a primary school has been reduced to 55 dwellings plus an elderly persons’ scheme, with the school deleted as the Education Authority does not have evidence of the need for a new school.

 

2.     Members of the public have had no response to the comments raised last year.  The minutes of a meeting of the Working Party in December 2019 advised that a newsletter would be sent out but nothing has been received.

 

There is a need to respond to representations and publish responses.  This is happening now.  The Working Party is making decisions and recommendations need to be reflected in responses to Regulation 18 and will form the basis of the next stage of the Plan.

 

3.     What information was provided by Pigeon Investment Limited to Anglian Water that led to the withdrawal of its holding objection?

 

Anglian Water has withdrawn its previous holding objection.

 

4.     Is there documentation that confirms that this land is in Cromer as the current Clifton Park development is known to be the borderline between Cromer and East Runton?   If it is in East Runton the land falls within a small growth village for development purposes.

 

The proposals for Cromer do not fall inside the Cromer town boundary.  There are very few sites available within the town boundary itself and in order for the town to grow it has to encroach on surrounding parish boundaries.

 

5.     Page 161 states ‘potential’ negative biodiversity impact.  This is misleading as there will be a negative impact and it should also be noted that views will (not could) be adversely impacted.

 

The field has been left unused and is now overgrown scrub which may be rich in wildlife.  It is a national requirement that all development sites in the Plan must show net biodiversity gain.  The proposal for this site suggests that 60% of the site would be enhanced in terms of biodiversity value to compensate for the area to be developed.  A plan of the proposal will be provided to Mrs Cole.

 

The Planning Policy Manager then gave an overview of the preferred sites.

 

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, stated that C07/2 and C22/1 were within her Ward.  In respect of C07/2, some residents had concerns regarding traffic management onto Norwich Road and she considered that the site could be difficult to deliver, although she had no objection.  With regard to C22/1, she was aware of difficulties with the Highway Authority.  Speaking as Vice-Chairman of the AONB Partnership, the site was within the AONB but it was very well screened and she did not consider that it would be intrusive.  Northrepps had a dark skies policy, and residents of Stevens Road had raised concerns regarding noise and light pollution from the proposed football ground.  Part of C16 was also within her Ward and any further development which would pave the way to joining Overstrand and Cromer would be resisted.

 

Councillor T Adams considered that none of the preferred sites were ideal.  Site C07/2 sat behind industrial development.  There were issues with site C22/1 with regard to the loss of a mature oak tree and access over the rail infrastructure, in addition to the points raised by Councillor Mrs Fitch-Tillett.  He had concerns regarding the deliverability of site C16 due to drainage issues.  Site C10/1 was the least popular of any site in the Local Plan.  He referred to the Landscape Character Assessment, the importance of the undefined open space to local residents, and biodiversity issues.  He referred to the Council’s declaration of climate emergency and considered that allocation of this site could cause reputational damage to the Council.  Noise from the railway line could be heard.  Odour from the Water Recycling Centre had been a source of complaint since he had become a Councillor and it affected even the most northerly part of Clifton Park.

 

The Working Party discussed and voted on each preferred allocation individually.

 

The Planning Policy Manager stated that site C07 had been rolled forward from the previous plan.

 

RECOMMENDED unanimously

 

That the following site is included in the Local Plan:

 

Site Ref	Description		Indicative Dwellings
C07/2	Land at Cromer High Station	0.8	22

 

The Planning Policy Manager recommended the inclusion of site C16 in the Local Plan, with an additional caveat requiring the submission of a comprehensive drainage strategy to address the drainage issues on the site.

 

RECOMMENDED unanimously

 

That the following site is included in the Local Plan, subject to a caveat to require the submission of a comprehensive drainage strategy:

 

Site Ref	Description		Indicative Dwellings
C16	Former Golf Practice Ground	6.35	180

 

The Planning Policy Manager recommended the inclusion of site C22/1 in the Local Plan subject to the resolution of the access issues.

 

Councillor N Pearce expressed his deep concern regarding this site because of its location and access, and he did not want to promote a site that was potentially unsafe.

 

Councillor P Heinrich asked if there were any indications from the Highway Authority as to how the access issues could be overcome.

 

The Planning Policy Manager explained that the recommendation was caveated to require evidence that safe access could be provided before the site could proceed to Regulation 19 consultation.  There were issues as to the extent to which the applicant controlled the necessary land to provide safe access into the site, and the provision of a safe pedestrian crossing over the railway bridge which required the agreement of Network Rail.  These were matters for the applicants to resolve, both for the current planning application and for Plan preparation.  The Working Party was being asked to agree in principle and the matter would need to be revisited if the necessary agreements could not be secured. 

 

Councillor Pearce asked if the lack of a five year land supply could lead to sites such as this being developed.

 

The Planning Policy Manager stated that if the Council fell below its 5 year land supply it would put pressure on to release development sites, which could be sites that had been discounted or sites which had not yet been promoted.

 

RECOMMENDED unanimously

 

That the following site is included in the Local Plan, subject to resolution of the access issues:

 

Site Ref	Description		Indicative Dwellings
C22/1	Land West of Pine Tree Farm	18.1	300

 

The Planning Policy Manager stated that the recommendation to include C10/1 in the Local Plan was based on the amended proposals submitted by Pigeon.  The submitted material was promotional at this stage.  He explained that developers were at liberty to submit promotional information to persuade the Working Party that their sites were deliverable, but the proposals were taken into account they had to be incorporated into the policy obligations.

 

Councillor Mrs S Bütikofer stated that residents of The Runtons felt strongly that they did not want to be subsumed into Cromer.  The site was already publicly accessible and available for informal recreation, and incredibly rich in biodiversity.  She did not consider that the proposals would help to improve open space provision and access to the countryside.  She considered that the proposals failed to meet the stated considerations of balancing growth with the protection of the nationally important landscape setting.  She stated that lower growth was being promoted in Cromer than in other Growth Towns due to the landscape constraints and the AONB.  This site was crucial in the wider landscape and it provided a spatial break between The Runtons and Cromer.  She considered that the amendments, whilst leaving land for a school for which there was no evidence of need, intensified the proposal.  She stated that local residents had long been concerned about building on the site for a number of reasons, but a major reason was noise and odour from the Water Recycling Centre.  She requested that the Working Party reject C10/1 and consider C18 and C42 as alternatives.

 

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr Snowling responded to the issues that had been raised and explained how he considered that his proposals addressed the concerns.

 

Councillor Adams stated that the northern part of the site was scrub, and whilst he was not saying that the site would not improve, he disputed that important ecological features would be retained.  He considered that there would be access issues with C18 and C42.

 

Councillor Mrs Bütikofer considered that there were highway safety issues with the proposed access into the site as there were several accesses very close by and a change in speed limit would be required.

 

Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones stated that she understood that planning and planning policy did not support ribbon development that linked distinct areas.  She supported the suggestion by Councillor Mrs Bütikofer to reconsider site C18 and C42, which was a continuation of C22.

 

Councillor P Heinrich considered there was no logic in C10/1 as there were access issues, it filled a strategic gap and he did not wish to see a continuous strip of development along the coast.  He also supported the consideration of C18 and C42 provided the issues could be addressed. 

 

Councillor N Pearce considered that all three sites were undesirable and that C18 and C42 would be controversial as they would also link Cromer to adjacent settlements.

 

The Planning Policy Manager explained that there would be a need to establish whether C18 and C42 were deliverable.  Both had been dismissed due to highway concerns.  He advised that the Working Party should defer consideration of C10/1 until deliverability of the alternative sites had been investigated.

 

It was proposed by Councillor A Brown, seconded by Councillor Ms V Gay and

 

RECOMMENDED unanimously

 

That consideration of site C10/1 (Land at Runton Road/Clifton Park) is deferred pending an opportunity to consider the deliverability of sites C18 (Land south of Burnt Hills) and C42 (Roughton Road South).

 

In respect of all sites recommended for allocation in the Local Plan, it was

 

RECOMMENDED

 

The final policy wording is delegated to the Planning Policy Manager.