Minutes:
Two members of the public presented statements (summarised below) to the Working Party, relating to the proposed allocations at Fakenham which would be considered under the next item.
George Acheson, speaking on behalf of Fakenham Town Council, stated that the Town Council had no objection to proposal DS6 (site F01/B) as it was a natural extension of the already planned “Trinity” site. He declared an interest on behalf of the Town Council as its Trap Lane field formed part of the site. The Town Council maintained its insistence that the road network must be upgraded to support the development.
The Town Council also supported proposal DS7 (site F03) as it was a suitable site bounded by the bypass.
The Town Council supported proposal DS8 (site F10) for low density housing and considered that this was the best use of a site adjacent to the town centre. It did not support local objections which had been raised in respect of this site. The land was not part of a SSSI. The area proposed for housing was currently grazing meadow with an animal crematorium between it and the river, with the remaining part being brownfield industrial land. Houses on the grazing land above the flood plain would be within walking distance of the town centre and would not increase traffic in the town centre. The proposal would improve the pedestrian route and open up pedestrian access from Norwich Road to the town centre, and could also open up pedestrian access to open space areas elsewhere in the town. The Town Council sought assurance that no houses would be built on the flood plain and that open space below the housing site would be publicly accessible. Most importantly, development of the housing site would free up land for employment space which was believed to be needed for the expansion of Kinnerton, a major employer, which had run out of space and may otherwise need to relocate out of Norfolk.
Tim Duffy, on behalf of the landowners of site F10, stated that the proximity of the land to the town centre would allow improved pedestrian and cycle access to the nearby facilities and businesses. The area proposed for the residential element of the site was outside of the flood zone and would be designed to allow for low density housing taking into account the total site area. The area closest to the river was in the flood zone and formed part of the overall site, but was not part of the residential proposal. The right scheme and plan should open up the available green space and enhance pedestrian and cycle access through to other recreational facilities.
The brownfield land adjoining the residential would remaindesignated for employment and light industrial use until circumstances indicated otherwise.
A traffic management and highways survey had been undertaken using highway authority guidelines and all appropriate measuring and monitoring had been carried out over a period of months.
A full biodiversity and European protected species survey had been carried out by consultants over a period of two years. The consultants had concluded that there would be no negative impacts on the Special Areas of Conservation.
Mr Duffy concluded that the proposal presented a unique opportunity to provide a number of benefits to Fakenham.