Agenda item

The Chairman stated that there was a need to be mindful that the Local Plan had to progress to the next stage as soon as possible.

The Planning Policy Manager presented an update report and recommended changes to the Small Growth Villages policy.

The Chairman requested that the size threshold be clarified as paragraph 3(f) did not give an upper limit, whereas the report referred to sites up to 1 hectare, and that ‘small scale incremental growth’ in paragraph 3(c) be given consideration as it was open to interpretation.  He asked if it should also be made clear in the policy and text that neighbourhood plans took precedence in cases where they were in conflict with the proposed policy.

The Planning Policy Manager agreed that reference to a 1 hectare upper limit would be a useful addition to the policy.

With regard to neighbourhood plans, the Planning Policy Manager stated that potential areas of conflict with many of the policies could emerge as neighbourhood plans were drafted and a decision would need to be made as to which strands of policy took precedence.  In practice, priority would be given to neighbourhood plans that had gone through due process and to which the Authority had not raised an objection, and he suggested that explanatory text should be added at the front of the Local Plan to explain the relationship between the Local Plan and neighbourhood planning, rather than modify each policy.

The Chairman agreed that a general policy elsewhere in the Plan would be acceptable but considered that a footnote should be inserted in this particular policy to refer the reader to the general remarks.  The Planning Policy Manager stated that he would take this matter on board.

Councillor N Pearce stated that there was a desperate need to build social housing for local people who could not afford market housing and that protection should be built into the Local Plan as it was not possible to legislate against second homes.  He considered that time limits should be placed on sites between .25 ha. and 1 ha. in order to prevent land banking by landowners and to assist Housing Associations who wanted to build on them.

Councillor P Heinrich suggested that the addition of the words ‘...the site abuts the development boundary and does not exceed 1 ha. in size’ to paragraph 3a would address the size threshold issue in the policy.

Councillor N Dixon considered that there was potential for Hoveton and Wroxham to take a disproportionate share of growth if they were both seen as growth towns by their respective authorities, and it was important that they were treated appropriately.  There was a confusion of terms with Hoveton being described as a Small Growth Town in some places, whereas elsewhere it was described as a Large Village and he considered that there was scope for further clarification. 

The Planning Policy Manager explained that Hoveton was not a Small Growth Village and did not sit within this policy.  Land beyond the development boundary of Hoveton would be within the Countryside policy area and would only be available for rural exceptions development.  The terminology could be clarified within the plan.  Phrases that had a policy function, rather than a descriptive function, such as Small Growth Town, would be highlighted within the policy document and described in the glossary.  Wording could be added to the preamble to make it clear that Hoveton was a village, although it was described as a Small Growth Town for policy purposes.

Councillor V Holliday expressed concern that an increase of 6% of the existing dwellings in Weybourne could result in 24 dwellings being built some distance from the limited local services, with residents driving to the local shop as the road was not safe to walk along.  It would be difficult to provide safe and convenient access in some of the villages.  She asked how many dwellings would be available for primary residence or local occupancy, and whether affordable housing would be included in these sites.  She stated that second homes would not be of benefit to the sustainability of these villages.  She asked why these small areas of land would be developed in the countryside rather than in towns where development would be less intrusive.

The Planning Policy Manager explained the criteria for Small Growth Villages.  The methodology had been agreed some time ago.  These villages were expected to deliver 350-400 dwellings over the entire Plan period.  Affordable housing would be required within developments of 5 or more dwellings.  The upper threshold of 1 ha. was a limit and not an entitlement and he considered that there would be merit in explaining this in the preamble to the policy.  It would be challenging to deliver a 1 ha. site on the edge of Weybourne and the policy wording ‘small scale incremental growth’ would enable the Development Committee to determine that development of that scale was unacceptable.  6% was a diminishing allowance that would be used up over time through small scale schemes.  The proposals were designed to deliver small amounts of market and affordable housing in this tier of settlements.  The second homes issue had been debated on several occasions and it had been decided not to impose restrictions as this would deflect demand elsewhere and would not be an effective control tool.

The Chairman stated that he had initially been concerned that the policy could be perceived as a fast track to offering sites for market development in instances where registered social landlords were overwhelmed with offers of land, but these concerns had been allayed as the numbers would be modest.  He considered that it should be borne in mind that the major developments such as those in Fakenham and North Walsham would take many years to be built out and this policy would give flexibility to deliver towards the Council’s housing target.

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

RECOMMENDED

1.    That Happisburgh is removed from the list of Small Growth Villages.

2.    That additional policy criteria are added to ensure that rural exceptions affordable housing schemes are prioritised in Small Growth Villages, and additional amendments

·         to explain how Neighbourhood Plans are impacted by the policy;

·         to clarify that the policy criteria applies to sites between .25 hectares and 1 hectare in size;

·         to provide clarification of the status of Hoveton as a Large Growth Village within the Local Plan.