Agenda item

Contact Officer, telephone number and email:

Iain Withington, Team Leader Planning Policy – (01263) 516034

Iain.withington@north-norfolk.gov.uk

Chris Brown, Project Management Support Officer – (01263) 516318

Chris.Brown@north-norfolk.gov.uk

1. The PPM introduced the Local Development Scheme and advised that it was a formal requirement when submitting the Local Plan for examination that the timetable be submitted as well as the stages followed when preparing the plan. He noted that there had been earlier timetables which had been stalled by the introduction of the White Paper and NN guidance, and advised that the main changes were alterations to submission dates (February/ March 2023) with the expectation that recommendations would be agreed by Council. The PPM stated that after submission there would be a year or more delay until adoption, pending the Local Plan Inspector’s decision. It would be for the new administration to adopt the Local Plan based on the timetable as set out.

2. Cllr J Punchard asked if Officers knew what the impact the County Deal would have on the Local Plan.

3. The PPM advised this was unknown, but that he had not seen anything which could indicate that the Local Plan process would be adversely impacted.

4. Cllr J Toye noted s.26, p.23 of the report, ‘significant risks’ and asked what constituted as a significant risk? 

5. The PPM advised the current Local Plan provided a sound basis for day to day decision-making, with the new Local Plan introducing some significant changes to deliver growth in the District. Site allocations contained in the last plan in 2011 were largely built out, with the exception of Fakenham, and the new plan also introduced a suite of environmental policies including bio-diversity net-gain, energy efficient construction and others. The PPM commented that the longer it took for the new plan to be submitted and adopted, the longer it would take to address housing need, deliver homes, introduce those new standards, and the greater the risk would be around the 5 year housing land supply. The longer the Council were without an up-to-date plan, the greater potential there would be for unplanned growth. Further, as government policy changes, the work which had been undertaken on the Local Plan begins to become outdated. The PPM stated there would be financial and reputational risks should the Council need to re-consult.

6. Cllr J Toye stated that, whilst he was happy with the scheme, it was important not to rush the Local Plan through to examination if it was not considered adequate.

7. The PPM advised if Members considered that more time and consideration were required into aspects of the Local Plan resulting in changes to main modifications, this would result in a delay to the timeline.

8. The Chairman commented that one significant risk was the impact of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, and expressed his desire to see the Local Plan submitted before this bill was passed.

9. Cllr P Heinrich noted that press reports indicated that the rigid housing targets would disappear through the Levelling Up regeneration Bill, though acknowledged this was not guaranteed. He asked how this may impact on the 5 year housing land supply and on future housing targets.

10. The PPM commented that press coverage related to a letter sent by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, to backbench MPs which announced the intention to get rid of centralised methodology for establishing housing targets. However, the language used in the letter expressed the intention to consult on an alternative to the centralised target system. The PPM considered that the formulaic approach contained within the NPPF would likely soon be gone, and what it would be replaced with was a matter of conjecture. He commented that targets would still need to be evidence based and establish a sensible need figure, likely tethered to ONS population figures. The PPM commented that NNDC departed from the standard methodology, instead considering local evidence, which resulted in around 1,500 dwellings fewer than the standard methodology procedures recommended. He considered there to be a clear correlation between market housing growth and delivery of affordable housing, stating that the need for accommodation would not disappear because the government considered that a different formula should be applied. The PPM affirmed that there remained significant inward migration, and 2,500 people on the waiting list for affordable housing, and advised it was these figures which determined the housing figures in the emerging Local Plan.

11. Cllr V Gay observed there was not a direct relationship between housing targets and house building. She asked if, after the Regulation 22 stage’ submission of the plan, whether it strengthened the case for the reliance upon the emerging local plan, as she understood that greater weight could be applied to emerging Local Plans as they passed through various stages.

The PPM affirmed that as each stage was passed, and as the plan got closer to adoption, greater weight could be attributed to the emerging Local Plan. He advised that two principal factors need to be taken into account, 1. The extent to which the emerging Local Plan was subject to challenge, and 2. Whether emerging policies aligned with the NPPF.

12. Cllr R Kershaw proposed the Officers recommendation. Cllr V Gay seconded.

IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED by 11 votes for.

Members of the Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party recommend to Cabinet the revised timetable for the submission, examination and adoption of the North Norfolk Local Plan and that the Local Development Scheme be brought into effect as of the date of the next meeting and published as required by section 15 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended).