The Planning Policy Manager presented a report updating the Working Party on the progress on the outstanding site allocations at Fakenham, Holt and Cromer.  He stated that the report erroneously referred to resolving site allocations in Cromer and apologised for any concerns this had caused.  He was seeking a steer from the Working Party with regard to further negotiations to secure further opportunities for growth in Cromer before bringing back the options to the Working Party.

The Chairman asked if there was a possibility of grant funding from Homes England to resolve the infrastructure issues to free up sites, particularly in relation to Roughton Road, Cromer.

The Planning Policy Manager explained that the visibility at the junction of Roughton Road with Felbrigg Road was extremely restricted, with limited opportunity to deliver any meaningful improvement, and any significant increase in traffic would be unacceptable to the Highway Authority.  A link road between Roughton Road and Norwich Road would have the potential to exacerbate the problem.  Roughton Road was almost at capacity in terms of traffic movements and had not been shown as being capable of improvement to an appropriate standard, but there was a possibility that the Highway Authority might accept a modest amount of development.  However, there was further work required on the options that might be available.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett stated that she understood that the applicants in respect of the Gurney proposal had almost resolved the highway issues.

The Planning Policy Manager stated that there was a need to distinguish between the planning application on the site and the potential allocation.  He explained that the planning application had to be deliverable, with all issues resolved, whereas the site allocation had to be developable, which was a lower test requiring a reasonable prospect of development.  The planning application indicated a form of vehicular access, a roundabout and a pedestrian bridge over the railway.  The Highway Authority had indicated that it did not object to the proposals but there was uncertainty as to whether the applicant was in a position to deliver the railway bridge.  It was unlikely that the application would come before the Development Committee in the near future as those issues were still being explored.  The sports pitch provision on the proposal was rather squeezed as a result of having to provide elderly persons’ accommodation.  The Planning Policy Manager considered that enlargement of the site would give flexibility to improve the scheme. 

Councillor Mrs Fitch-Tillett asked if additional land for housing would encroach on the AONB.

The Planning Policy Manager stated that all the Cromer sites, with the exception of Clifton Park, would encroach on the AONB, which might raise issues at the examination.  There was a tension between addressing needs and protecting the environment and a balanced judgement had to be made.  He considered that it was not a sustainable option to say that Cromer should not grow.  There was also a complication that the sites were in adjacent parishes.

Councillor N Pearce stated that Roughton Road was not suitable for any major increase in traffic.  Norwich Road was the right access and there was grudging acceptance that development would take place on the Gurney site if it could be resolved.  However, he was very concerned that the provision of the railway bridge would have an impact on the number of affordable low cost and rented homes that could be delivered to address the high level of housing need in the Cromer area.

Councillor Pearce referred to the Council’s green agenda and the duty to protect heritage and the AONB.  He stated that whilst he understood the need to grow, there were issues that needed to be resolved if the Council were to deliver both housing and its green agenda. He was concerned that the Gurney/Cabbell Manners sites would join the adjacent parishes with Cromer with no green area to differentiate them from the town, whereas there was resistance to any infill between East Runton and Cromer.   He considered that more work was needed on these issues.

The Chairman stated the Working Party was not being asked to debate the advantages or disadvantages of the sites.  However he considered that there was a valid point regarding possible infill to the west of Cromer as well as to the south or south east.

Councillor P Heinrich stated that with regard to the railway bridge, there was an issue with fixing structures to weak cuttings and embankments.  However, there were some lightweight bridge designs that would mitigate those issues and he suggested that Network Rail should be asked to consider them.

The Planning Policy Manager suggested that a recommendation to continue negotiations on a without prejudice basis in relation to options at Cromer would be appropriate.  He had heard the concerns that had been raised and understood them sufficiently to enter into cautious discussions.  A report would be brought back to the Working Party in the near future.

It was proposed by Councillor P Heinrich, seconded by Councillor J Toye and unanimously agreed to amend recommendation 3 as suggested by the Planning Policy Manager.

It was proposed by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, seconded by Councillor J Punchard and

RECOMMENDED unanimously

1.    That the Shell Petrol Filling Station Site at Fakenham is included as a proposed allocation in the Regulation 19 Plan.

2.    That, in light of the Gladman Appeal decision, no further allocations are made in Holt.

That officers continue negotiations on a without prejudice basis in relation to options at Cromer.