Agenda item

Summary:		This report provides an update on sites which were previously considered for allocation and which were deferred for a variety of reasons.
Recommendations:	1    That the following sites be retained as allocations in the proposed Submission Local Plan: ·         Mundesley MUN03/A - Land off Cromer Road & Church Lane ·         Blakeney    BLA04/A Land East of Langham Road 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

 

 

The Planning Policy Manager presented an update report on the deferred sites at Blakeney and Mundesley.

 

Blakeney

 

Rosemary Thew, Chairman of Blakeney Parish Council, made a statement to the Working Party (summarised).  The Kingsway site (BLA04/A) was preferred but further information had recently been tabled, which the Parish Council had not had the opportunity to discuss.  There had been no public consultation on the Oddfellows site (BLA01/B).  The Oddfellows site would block views, require an extensive roadway which would cause disruption to residents and lighting would run counter to the dark skies policy.  Direct access via Morston Road would be dangerous for pedestrians and proposed pedestrian access would compound problems on Queensway, which was already dangerous.  The Kingsway site would be closer to existing development, would not block views and a footpath ran along the length of the site which would allow easy access to village facilities and for children to walk directly to school.  Affordable housing was the main issue for the village and more large houses and second homes were not needed.  She requested deferral for one month to allow both proposals to be tabled at a Parish Council meeting on 12 January 2021.

 

The Chairman responded that it would not be appropriate to delay consideration of this matter.  Full consideration had been given in July 2020 and the Local Plan was subject to a rigid timetable to enable it to be submitted for examination by the Inspector in mid-2021.

 

Four members of the public spoke in support of BLA01/B (summarised):

 

Clive Albany: Referred to the previous decision and discussions at the July meeting.  The areas of concern had been resolved.  BLA04/A would be more prominent and would not provide the opportunity for green space.  The 1.5 ha of green space, housing design, safe village pathways and off-road siting easily outweighed any minor negatives of BLA01/B when compared to BLA04/A's prominent, crowded basic design and total lack of any public green space.

 

John Fairlie: Both sites have been tested against the adopted and draft Landscape Character Assessment and adopted Conservation Area and Management Plan criteria.  BLA01/B would meet allocation and affordable housing requirements, with landscaped views from Langham Road.  The topography of the site would allow for a scheme with open space and landscaping features that would reflect the density of development across the village and blend into the existing settlement pattern.  It would provide footpath connectivity with Morston Road and maintain important views.  BLA04/A would conflict with the Local Plan evidence base as it would create a hard edge to the village, interrupt the setting of the Church, provide no connectivity to residential streets and change the character of the approach to the village.

 

John Bryant: Site 01 would best meet the needs of the village, is already more connected to the village than site 04, and would be further connected by footpaths and a cycleway.  It would provide for landscaping and open space, and have the minimum environmental and visual impact on the landscape.  Plans for site 04 could not match the exciting plans for site 01.  The development of site 04 would spoil views to the east as you enter Blakeney and block views of the church, contrary to the adopted Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan.

 

David Foreman: Accept the need for homes for local people but regret the necessity for expensive homes to finance them.  The environmental and visual impact should be mitigated by placing the houses in the least obtrusive position.  Referred to the decision at the July meeting; the facts have not changed and neither should the decision.

 

Three members of the public spoke in favour of BLA04/A (summarised):

 

Tony Hadley: BLA01/B would require a 250m long access road, which would cause disturbance to wildlife, pollution, compromise the dark skies policy and scar the landscape, there were concerns over viability and connectivity to the village.  Blakeney Parish Council unanimously supported BLA04/A.  Coast/sea/marsh views were unique to the coastline and especially Blakeney and views of the church would not be lost.  BLA04/A would provide the right accommodation in the right location and within budget.

 

John Myers: The site would provide much more convenient and pleasant access to services for its residents.  The development would require less greenfield land and would not incur the expense of providing the roadway nor its incursion into agricultural land.  Being on higher ground, the site would be more resilient to flood risk.  The development would not obscure important views.  The quality of the market houses would be higher than those on BLA01/B.

 

Tim Schofield: There is questionable viability in respect of the Oddfellows site.  Both sites are located in an exceptionally sensitive area and BLA04 was preferred by the Council after careful consideration by professional analysts and extensive public consultation, and there was a strong evidence base for the choice.  Density is appropriate for this context, whereas BLA01 would be twice the size with half the density and require a huge amount of land to make it acceptable, including a large tranche of BLA09 which was widely discredited during the call for sites and consultation phases. BLA04/A would not require large tracts of land. 

 

The Planning Policy Manager displayed a map showing the location of the sites, and photographs taken from viewpoints on both proposals.  

 

At the request of the Chairman, the Planning Policy Manager outlined the procedure for the Local Plan to proceed to the next stage.  He explained that all discounted options had been published at Regulation 18 stage, so there had been consultation on the Oddfellows site at that stage.  Members were now selecting the final choice of sites to submit for examination, prior to which they would be subject to Regulation 19 public consultation, with all other options excluded.  The public could comment on the selected sites and those comments would be considered by the Inspector.  The Council would defend and justify its proposals to the Inspector, who would decide if those proposals were acceptable.  People who made representations at Regulation 19 stage would have the opportunity to be heard at the examination by the Inspector.

 

The Planning Policy Manager read to the Working Party, the comments of Councillor Ms K Ward, the local Member.  Councillor Ms Ward had been extensively lobbied over both sites and had no financial interest in either site.  The overriding consideration for the majority of residents who had contacted her was the provision of local homes for local people, and in particular, homes for social rent.  Residents would support the site that guaranteed the most social housing, particularly if it could be secured for local letting rather than general letting.  She understood that BLA04 was preferred by the Parish Council as the landowner was offering significant social housing provision, and local housing providers were already working with the Parish Council to secure local letting options.  She had not been provided with information on the social housing provision for BLA01.  She requested that the Working Party select the site that had demonstrated commitment to social housing provision.  Both sites were problematic from a landscape perspective but she did not consider that landscape was a critical issue at this stage.

 

The Planning Policy Manager explained that the preparation of the Local Plan was concerned with the principle of allocating land, the number of dwellings, controlling layout etc and provision of affordable housing.  Affordable housing on allocated sites should be delivered for general letting.  Both sites were offering 35% affordable housing which should be delivered in the tenure mix set by policy, but priority would be determined by the Housing Enabling Team under the general lettings policy and not the local lettings policy.  He advised the Working Party to treat both sites equally as they were offering broadly similar quantities and mixes of affordable homes.

 

Councillor N Dixon stated that a decision had to be made and he was satisfied that the Officer’s recommendation should be supported.

 

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett stated that she was always concerned about incursions into the AONB and would take some comfort if the design were to be of a local vernacular.  She was also concerned about light pollution.  She asked if it was possible to address these issues at this stage.

 

The Planning Policy Manager advised that design was a matter for consideration at planning application stage when the impact could be judged. 

 

Councillor J Toye considered that the paths should be well maintained to discourage people from using cars or an unsuitable route.  He asked what the proposals were for both sites.

 

The Planning Policy Manager stated that it would be possible to walk to the key village facilities from either site.  It would be difficult to separate the sites in terms of their proximity to day to day services or on the basis of a better link.  It might be possible to improve the existing footpath within site BLA04/A, but only for the section that ran parallel to the site itself.

 

Councillor Ms V Gay stated that she had formed the impression at the July meeting that Blakeney Parish Council had no preference, but it was now clear that the Parish Council had a view in this matter which would weigh with her when casting her vote.

 

Councillor P Heinrich considered that there was a fine balance between the sites but he had to take note of the Parish Council view.  He also took note of the Officer’s arguments in favour of BLA04/A.  He was still considering his position but tended towards the recommendation.

 

Councillor N Pearce considered that either choice would have a detrimental effect on the environment and surrounding area.  He applauded the inclusion of affordable housing in both schemes.  He asked if the percentage of affordable housing was definite.

 

The Planning Policy Manager explained that it was unusual for viability assessments to be submitted at this stage.  In both cases they were based on assumptions rather than specific proposals, but both claimed to be able to deliver 35% affordable housing.  Both assessments had taken a reasonable view in relation to the costs associated with development, and the Oddfellows promoters had included the costs of providing the road.  Neither viability assessment had been subject to professional scrutiny and had been taken at face value, but there was nothing that indicated to him that they would struggle to reach 35% as the housing market in Blakeney was very buoyant with high property values. 

 

Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that reasoned arguments had been put forward for both sites and it was a finely balanced decision.  She was minded to support the Officer’s recommendation.

 

The Head of Planning stated that what had been put forward by both parties was an expression of intent on the balance of probabilities.  These were not planning applications, there was no Section 106 Agreement tied to them and the matter would have to be resolved through the development management process. 

 

It was proposed by Councillor N Dixon, seconded by Councillor P Grove-Jones and

 

RECOMMENDED unanimously

 

That site BLA04/A (land east of Langham Road) is retained as an allocation in the proposed submission Local Plan and the final policy wording is delegated to the Planning Policy Manager.

 

Mundesley

 

Mrs W Fredericks, the local Member, stated that she was very pleased that the number of dwellings had been reduced from 50 to 30 and expressed her appreciation for the consultation with Mundesley Parish Council.  She requested that the dwellings were sited away from the Victorian terraced properties as there were concerns regarding drainage, overlooking and overshadowing. 

 

The Planning Policy Manager explained that the site was large enough to accommodate a variety of layouts.  The impact on the terrace would be a matter for consideration by the Development Committee when a planning application was submitted.  He suggested that wording be added to the policy to flag up the need to protect the amenity of adjacent occupiers.

 

Councillor Mrs Fredericks welcomed the suggested additional wording and proposed the recommendation subject to that amendment.  This was seconded by Councillor A Brown.

 

RECOMMENDED unanimously

 

That MUN03/A – land off Cromer Road and Church Lane (reduced to approximately 30 dwellings) is retained as an allocation in the proposed Submission Local Plan, and the final policy wording is delegated to the Planning Policy Manager, to include the need to protect the amenity of adjacent occupiers.

 

Holt and Cromer

 

The Planning Policy Manager reported that a report would be submitted regarding Beresford Road, Holt in the New Year.

 

The sites at Cromer would be reconsidered when a decision had been made on a planning application in respect of Norwich Road, Cromer.