Agenda item

The Planning Policy Manager presented the report and site assessment booklets relating to proposed allocations for Fakenham and Wells-next-the-Sea.  He gave a brief overview of the methodology and decision making framework for the finalisation of site selection in the Local Plan.  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. 

In addition to the recommendations set out in the documents, the Planning Policy Manager recommended that a caveat be attached to site F02 to require confirmation from the Highway Authority that an acceptable access could be provided.

The Planning Policy Manager emphasised the need for Working Party to identify an alternative preferred site if it did not agree with a recommended site.  He recommended that any alternative sites identified by the Working Party be deferred for a detailed report at a later meeting.

The Chairman endorsed the comments of the Planning Policy Manager, both in view of the need to maintain the required housing numbers and the transition arrangements recently announced in a Government White Paper which would speed up the timeline to Regulation 19 to allow the Plan to proceed.

Fakenham

Councillor J Punchard, Member for Lancaster South Ward, considered that all the sites, in particular F01/B and F03, presented a good opportunity to extend planned growth for the town and deliver a large proportion of the required housing for the District.  There were some concerns regarding F10 but he understood a great deal of work had been done with regard to environment and access issues, as outlined by Mr Duffy.  Fakenham had regularly delivered sites of 30-50 houses over the last 10-15 years as it was viable for developers to do so, and he therefore considered that it was more likely that F10 would be delivered than the larger “Trinity” site which would take a long time to deliver. F01/B and F03 required a £10,000,000 worth of infrastructure to be provided to the north of the town before the site could be developed and the larger the site could be made, the more affordable the infrastructure would be. 

Councillor C Cushing, Member for Lancaster North Ward, endorsed the proposals made and the contributions made by the speakers.  He considered that it was important that sites F01/F01A in the current Local Plan and site F01/B were seen as one site when developing plans for the former.  It was likely that there would be a sizeable increase in the population of Fakenham and he hoped there would be some consideration to finding employment sites in addition to sites for housing.  He referred to plans by Norfolk County Council for a site around Fakenham College which had potential for some social housing, and asked how it tied in to the Local Plan.

The Planning Policy Manager explained that the Fakenham College site was designated as an open land area in the existing and new Local Plans.  Some of the school buildings and ancillary areas were within the designated residential area and proposals for small scale housing development could come forward without specific allocations being made.  The County Council was not in a position to make detailed proposals but opportunities existed through current policies and would continue to do so.  It was intended to retain the sense of openness at the frontage of the site through designations in the Plan and associated policies.

Councillor J Rest, Member for Lancaster South, supported the previous comments.  He appreciated that Fakenham was primed for development and had sufficient land to allow it to take place, but he questioned whether there would be sufficient facilities and other services to support it, such and healthcare and infrastructure.

Councillor N Dixon requested assurance that future climate change would not place any of F10 in the flood plain for the foreseeable future.  He requested that the appropriate phasing of employment and infrastructure alongside housing development be included in the Plan.  

The Planning Policy Manager stated that the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment had recently been updated.  In consideration of this, the residential area of F10 had been reduced in size to avoid development in the flood risk area, taking account of the full impacts of future climate change.

The Planning Policy Manager stated that the current proposals for the Trinity site included in principle the future delivery of a further 5 hectares of employment land provision.  Mixed use proposals with employment and other facilities were embedded in the scheme.  It would be a matter for Development Committee to consider how the phased delivery of the employment land could be secured.  He outlined the current opportunities in Fakenham for employment development.  He considered that the overall plan for Fakenham struck a fairly good balance between employment and housing growth.  However, significant investment in drainage capacity and highway works were required before the Trinity proposals could come forward.  The smaller sites would be easier to deliver and would maintain housing growth in Fakenham whilst the larger schemes were comprehensively planned and brought forward.

The Planning Policy Manager pointed out that the recommendations also included open space designations.

It was proposed by Councillor A Brown, seconded by Councillor J Punchard and

RECOMMENDED unanimously

1.           That the following sites are included in the Local Plan, subject to the Highway Authority confirming that safe access can be provided in respect of site F02:

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

3.           That all other sites are discounted at this stage.

4.      That the green open space designations shown on the site assessment maps are agreed.

Wells-next-the-Sea

Councillor P Fisher, Member for Wells with Holkham, stated that W01/1 was well supported, although W07/1 was less so.  However, the Town Council was content with both sites.  He considered that the main problem would be ensuring there was enough affordable housing.

The Chairman stated that Wells was in Zone 2 for affordable housing and therefore sites over 6 dwellings were expected to deliver 35% affordable housing.  It was uncertain as to what impact the reform of the planning system would have on the delivery of affordable housing over the course of the Plan.

Councillor D Baker considered that it was difficult to get affordable housing built in Wells and it was good to see that 28 were proposed through the Plan.  He asked how the Council could ensure that developers built the quantity of affordable housing that was required.

The Planning Policy Manager stated that the policies were often seen as a starting point for negotiation regarding viability.  The Plan had been subject to a viability assessment and Officers were confident that a requirement of 35% would be deliverable and unforeseen development costs had been identified.  The allocated site in the current Plan had delivered the required number of affordable dwellings.  A paper would be brought to the Working Party at a future meeting regarding housing mix and tenure.  He explained that it would not be possible to restrict affordable dwellings on allocated sites to local lettings dwellings, which were normally delivered through exceptions schemes.  Affordable dwellings on allocated sites were for general needs affordable housing.

Councillor P Heinrich asked if W07 would be at risk in a storm surge.

The Planning Policy Manager stated that only a very small area of the site was in the flood risk area.  The site was elevated and high above the flood risk area.

It was proposed by Councillor A Brown, seconded by Councillor P Grove-Jones and

RECOMMENDED unanimously

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

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

3.           That all other sites are discounted at this stage.

4.      That the green open space designations shown on the site assessment maps are agreed.

(Councillor D Baker had left the meeting and did not vote)

The Chairman thanked the Planning Policy Manager, Planning Policy Team Leader and the Planning Policy Team for their work in producing the booklets, and thanked the Planning Policy Manager for his input at the meeting.