Minutes:
The PPTL provided a verbal update to Members on the Consultation on the Local Plan and Work Programme, which did not reflect Nutrient Neutrality. He advised that the regulation 19 Consultation period closed in February and that 404 responses had been submitted on the portal with a further 106 letters/emails received. Roughly 64% of the submitted responses were in the prescribed format, but as many of the responses were not in the prescribed format and referenced specific sections, therefore additional work would need to be undertaken.
The PPTL advised that the team were currently engaged with other work, and that responses to the consolation period would not be looked at till May. This was behind the targeted time and was due to unexpected increases in workloads caused in part by Nutrient Neutrality and the introduction of the GIRAMS Tariff.
He advised that the Local Plan had been broadly supported, and that where there were issues of soundness and legality, they were not considered to be key and were instead based on perceptions.
The PPTL generalised that comments and objections focused on infrastructure provision accompanying growth, and the belief that no growth should occur till improvements to roads and health care provisions were made. The site which received the greatest number of representations was C22 2 in Cromer.
Responses from Statutory Bodies
The responses received by statutory bodies were broadly supportive with the exception of Broadland District Council which raised a specific legal challenge around the wider off-site highways impacts and improvements due to North Walsham West which would need to be factored into the final plan.
He commented that Natural England raised an objection to air quality, and suggested that further research be undertaken with regard to traffic levels in close proximity to road networks, and requested that various policies including ENV6 and C13 were linked in this matter. The PPTL stated he understood this matter had already been looked at by the Council, but that additional investigations were required.
With reference to Historic England, the PPTL commented that they were in support with many of the inclusions within the draft local plan, and particularly liked that a historic impact assessment had been undertaken. They encouraged findings be replicated verbatim in the document. The PPTL acknowledged there had been some issue with staff turnover affecting consistency with respect of wording used, and that Historic England had provided modified language it suggested be used. This would need to be considered by Officers going forward. Additionally Historic England would prefer that each Heritage Asset by considered individually rather than be considered in a broader context, this too would need to be given further consideration by Officers.
The PPTL commented that the Statutory Health Body welcomed the Local Plan, and advised that they would be changing name to Norfolk and Waveney Integrated Care System in July 2022, which they wish to be reflected in the Local Plan.
He advised that Norfolk County Council were supportive but sought minor amendments and or clarifications to specific access points at 2 locations.
The PPTL commented that the NPS objected to the designation of the Playing Field at Holt belonging to the primary school and by extension Norfolk County Council, being designated for Housing. He advised that NCC had indicated support for this land to be used for housing in future however it was envisioned that the designation for this site would remain as ‘Open Land’.
He stated that the Environment Agency had questioned the use of an indicative housing allowance for the small growth site of Horning, which they considered to be potentially undeliverable. The PPTL commented that, on reflection, this view was accepted and a minor amendment would be made.
With reference to Anglian Water, the PPTL commented that they supported the overarching vision for climate resilient sustainable development and in directing growth to major settlements. Anglian Water had sought to include any assessments and Local Planned Growth in its Wastewater Management Plan 2025-2030, however following that plans objection by OFWAT, it was determined that only adopted Local Plan Policies, and not intended, would be considered. The PPTL relayed that Anglian Water had advised they could accommodate significant growth in both Cromer and North Walsham, and that there was infrastructure development planned for Fakenham. There was potentially some future improvements required at other waste water recycling sites around Holt and Mundesley but Anglian Water did not consider this to be an issue.
The PPTL advised the above were a snapshot of the comments made by statutory bodies, and stressed that Officers had yet to go through submissions made in detail.
Works Programme
The PPTL informed Members of the next steps and where the Planning Policy Team were at with respect of workload. He commented that the team were soon to start on splitting representations received into policy areas and would transcribe into schedules with each policy area reviewed against comments. From its current position till submission, work of Officers would be in a prescribed format as the Council had effectively published its draft Local Plan. Any modifications made going forward would need to be justified and evidenced, detailing whether they were minor or main modifications.
Main Modifications would require large scale changes and this work would be undertaken where the issue affected soundness or a legal challenge. Main Modification changes would likely lead to further consultation which would need to be supported with further documentation, and signed off by the Council. He commented that this could only be determined when the substance was known, and affirmed the team had yet to study comments.
The PPTL explained the intention to produce 5 schedules:
1. Detail the Reponses verbatim.
2. Detail amendments received by individuals in alphabetical order.
3. Main Schedule - detail the received modifications and Councils response including if a modification required by Officers, and to submit this for proposal by Council.
4. Translate the schedule into proposed minor and main modifications, to be provided to the Planning Inspector with an audit trail and justification of amendments.
5. Transpose track changes and submit to examiner.
The PPTL advised that the team were very busy looking at background papers and various other steams of work for submission. Updating background papers and site assessment booklets was ongoing, including approach to setting employment policies, housing targets, and distribution of growth, approach to wind energy, historic environment and settlement boundary review.
Members Debate
The PPTL stated that Nutrient Neutrality advice presented a Legal Issue, and affirmed that whilst Natural England’s advice was published after the consultation period had concluded, it remains a legal issue in relation to the Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) which did not address the matter. He advised that Nutrient Neutrality advise would need to be referenced in the Local Plan, with a revised HRA referencing appropriate mitigation solutions which would pass the higher bar of ‘beyond scientific doubt’. He advised that the Greater Norwich Local Plan had been suspended whilst Nutrient Neutrality was in abeyance, and that all other Norfolk Authorities had been affected.
The PPTL advised if Members were minded to introduce policies which would seek to address homes in relation to locally identified need this would require additional work of the team, and would result in a significant delay to the Local Plan publication. The PPM endorsed the comments made by the PPTL and acknowledged representations had been received in response to the lack of second homes restrictions in the Local Plan. There remains the option for the Council to consider its position, however it would need to consider:
1. Evidence – Specifically what is the Council seeking to control and why?
2. Effectiveness of land-use mechanisms – The PPM stated his view that Land-use tools were not an effective way of controlling second home ownership for reasons detailed in prior meetings.
The PPTL advised that prior to Natural England’s advice on Nutrient Neutrality the Planning Policy team had been working on an indicative timeline with the earliest submission date being the end of Summer 2022. However this was now brought into question.
The PPM stated NNDC were working with other Norfolk Authorities, and that lessons could be learned from the response supplied by the Inspector on the Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP), with the mitigation measures introduced with the GNLP could be adopted and replicated in North Norfolk. The PPM heeded Members that the timeline for mitigation strategies was uncertain, and referenced the timeline issues with the Green Infrastructure Strategy which was both cross-authority and ongoing. He cautioned that working collectively with other political authorities would lead to inevitable delays due to a difference of priority, and advised that interim solutions contained to North Norfolk only may be required.
Cllr N Dixon followed up on his question, and asked if the September deadline remained the target, or if this had been pushed back.
The PPM stated that he did not know what the position would be by September, and that the Councils position would be made clearer when the independent cross-authority specialist had been appointed and short term mitigation strategy’s drafted. The test during the examination of the Local Plan by the Planning Inspector would be ‘are you confident that mitigation strategy will be implementable within a reasonable period of time’. As the Local Plan was expected to last 20 years, a reasonable period for implementing mitigation may be considered around 1-2 years. The PPM advised that the difficulty in delivering mitigation was in engaging with developers and private land owners, and it had been easier for those Local Authorities to implement mitigation where the land was owner was within the Public Sector.
The PPM relayed that the government had appointed 2 advisors to address Nutrient Neutrality and that this was a bespoke resource available to all Local Authorities. Additionally the planning advisory group were hosting seminars and training with representatives from government in attendance to answer questions. He commented that, to some extent, the local branch of Natural England were caught off guard by the national announcement made and that had not received prior notification. He expressed his keenness that a collective response be utilised across the Norfolk Authorities, and advised that all Chief Officers were meeting on a weekly basis on this issue.
The PPTL reiterated Natural England’s advice that solutions must be located upstream of the associated waste water recycling centre and that strategic solutions would need to be determined with respect of their individual locations.
The PPM advised that Nutrient Neutrality was established to maintain the current condition of the watercourses, this was not a case for betterment or improvement. He commented that the current condition of the watercourses was unacceptable, and advised it was likely that future policies introduced would seek to improve water quality. He elaborated that the government were looking into setting a challenging nature recovery strategy which would have a 40% reduction in nitrates in watercourses.