- 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.
- Cllr J Punchard asked if Officers
knew what the impact the County Deal would have on the Local
- 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.
- Cllr J Toye noted s.26, p.23 of the
report, ‘significant risks’ and asked what constituted
as a significant risk?
- 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the Local Plan begins to become outdated.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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
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.
- 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).