Agenda item

The PPM introduced the report and informed Members that their decision on North Walsham may influence the following site allocations. He added that approval of all reports would result in publication of the Plan for Regulation 19 consultation, that would allow final comments on the soundness of the Plan. It was hoped that only minor modifications would be required at this stage, that could be approved by the Inspector without having to withdraw the Plan. On North Walsham, the PPM stated that the town would be critical to the success of the Plan, as it would host a significant portion of the growth required to meet the Council’s housing target, with limited alternate options available. He added that without a development brief, it was important that Members were comfortable with the content of the site allocation policy to progress the Plan without causing further delay. The PPM noted that a summary of consultation responses had been included for consideration, with only a small number of issues unresolved. These related to the necessity for a rail bridge at Bradfield Road, where various options were being considered, offsite highways considerations relating to the potential for increased traffic flow, and the potential for increased home working in the future. It was suggested that a mixed use site would promote self-containment within the town, which in addition to a traffic impact assessment, may help to alleviate future traffic concerns.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          Cllr V Gay stated that it was unfortunate that the development brief would not be ready for the Regulation 19 consultation, as this had been the original understanding. She noted that it was her understanding that approval of a brief would still be required before development could proceed, and asked for clarification on this process. The PPM replied that without a design brief in place no development could proceed and applications would be refused. Cllr V Gay referred to the Bradfield Road bridge and suggested that any inadequate infrastructure would not be used. She added that she also expected any future traffic impact assessments to take movement within the town into account, as well as service routes. The PPM confirmed that a comprehensive assessment of all traffic routes would have to be considered as part of any proposal. In response to a question on consultation comments, it was noted that many issues raised had already been addressed, though it would be helpful for the Policy to include the agreed vision statement. Cllr V Gay stated that she was pleased to see that green infrastructure considerations were now a key concern for a majority of stakeholders, which had been addressed within the Policy.

      ii.          Cllr J Toye raised concerns that other forms of transport besides cars were not being given adequate consideration within the Policy, and suggested that greater emphasis should be given to public transport options. The PPM stated whilst the transport impact assessment would outline the impact of development, there was also an expectation for detailed travel plans to be developed that would encourage walking and increased use of public transport. He added that further development and growth may also provide opportunities for additional services in the town, that would negate the need for further travel.

     iii.          Cllr P Heinrich stated that the Policy was comprehensive and addressed many of the concerns raised by residents and the town council, then asked whether there was a timescale for completion of the development brief. The PPM replied that whilst the Communities Fund bid had failed, a site promoter had now been found that would undertake much of the technical work, leaving the Council to focus on the development brief and design code. He added that external support would be sought to bring these forward within six to eight months, though focus would be placed on getting the Plan out to consultation first. It was noted that the recent loss of a Team Member would have an impact, though he had left the Team in a good position. Cllr P Heinrich raised concerns about the willingness of developers to invest external roads, and suggested that without the necessary highways infrastructure, he did not believe the development could succeed and asked whether this could be guaranteed prior to development. The PPM replied that nothing had been identified that would prevent the necessary road from being developed, and whilst the funding mechanism was unknown at this stage, this was not unusual. It was confirmed that issues relating to sustainability, design and layout would be covered in the development brief, whilst the level of affordable housing would be set by a viability assessment which currently suggested 15%, though consultants had been asked to review this in the hope it may be higher.

    iv.          Cllr N Dixon reiterated concerns regarding the lack of a development brief but accepted the circumstances and that it would not be worthwhile delaying consultation. He added that lessons had been learnt from the development of the previous Plan in relation to site allocations in Fakenham, and suggested that deliverability should be a primary concern, with any additional efforts welcomed to ensure this deliverability. It was noted that whilst the potential for increased traffic flow was a concern, providing highways solutions may inhibit opportunities for creating a modal shift in resident’s travel patterns. Cllr N Dixon suggested that the Council had to be proactive in promoting the positive opportunities for greater self-containment within the town, alongside existing efforts to ensure that the site was deliverable.

      v.          Cllr V Holliday referred to health infrastructure and sought assurances that health care provision would be in place prior to the development of residential properties. The PPM agreed that this was a serious concern and whilst dialogue with the Health Authority had improved, the Planning role was to provide opportunity and enable others to invest, so it could not ensure when and to what level investments were made.

    vi.          Cllr W Fredericks referred to the affordable housing target and suggested that 15% was too low as a starting point, whilst some developments in other parts of the District were as high as 30%. She asked whether it would be possible to consider targets of approximately 20-25%. The PPM replied that whilst he was sympathetic to the requests, the targets were not based solely on need, as they had to take into account the viability of each development. He added that viability often depended on property values, which would not be as high as in other parts of the District, thus making higher targets unviable, and creating potential for the Plan to be considered unsound. Cllr W Fredericks accepted the comments, but suggested that the 15% target should be set as a minimum, with the option of including an uplift clause. She added that it was also important to ensure that public transport remained viable for residents from surrounding villages to reach the town and continue into Norwich. The PPM agreed that it would be crucial that transport planning took this into account.

   vii.          The recommendations were proposed by Cllr P Heinrich and seconded by Cllr R Kershaw

RESOLVED

1.     To note the results of the public engagement on the emerging principles in the Development Brief, and;

2.     That delegated authority is given to the Planning Policy Manager to progress with the Development Brief work following the Regulation 19 consultation.