Summary:
|
This report provides a summary of the requested modifications and Council feedback in relation to soundness and legal issues raised by respondents to the consultation held previously on the proposed submission version of the Draft Local Plan |
|
|
Recommendations:
|
Members of the Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party recommend to Cabinet that the Schedules of proposed modifications along with the Proposed Submission version of the Local Plan be submitted for independent examination.
To delegate minor amendments in the finalisation of the submission version & Schedules and associated documents to the Planning Policy Manager and Policy Team Leader.
|
Cabinet Member(s) Cllr Andrew Brown
|
Ward(s) affected
All |
All Members
|
All Wards |
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Iain Withington, Team Leader Planning Policy – (01263) 516034
Iain.withington@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Minutes:
Local Plan submission: Proposed Modifications (policies)
He advised that there were other changes consisting of typographical errors, consistency and presentational issues, which were proposed to be included for consideration by the Inspector en bloc, as these were uncontentious presentational changes.
The PPM noted that Members had been provided the schedule of representations in full around 8 weeks prior, with the information also being made available on the portal. Within the Agenda Papers, Members had been provided with schedule 3 – containing a summary of the key issues and Officer’s responses, schedule 4 – the proposed minor modifications, and a separate main modification on NN.
With Regards NN, the PPM advised that the Council must meet the habitat regulations requirement as this was a legal requirement of the Local Plan. In order to meet this requirement, the proposals contained within the plan must mitigate their impact on the receiving watercourses, in this instance the impact of phosphorus and nitrogen pollution on the river Wensum and the Broads. The PPM advised that a policy requirement had been added to the Local Plan that no development take place unless it demonstrated NN, in addition to some contextual background information explaining what this issue was, and how it impacted on the development industry, effectively serving as an embargo on specific development in those catchment areas which failed to address NN. Had the Local Plan been submitted 6 months prior, he considered that it would have been challenging to get through examination as the Council did know what mitigation may look like or what the financial impact may be. Mitigation strategies were now much clearer, and costs were anticipated to be around £5,000 per dwelling as an average. That costs had been averaged in an update of the viability assessment, ensuring that those costs did not undermine the deliverability of other policy considerations. The PPM considered this policy fix was sufficient, though acknowledged the Planning Inspector would still ask questions about mitigation strategies.
The PPM did not propose to discuss schedule 3 verbatim, rather, he proposed to address the key issues of the report under each topic area.
Climate Change (P.52 of the Agenda Pack, s 2.3 onwards)
The PPM advised there were two opinions on this matter, the first from the development industry, which considered the requirements to be excessive. The second, which considered that the policies in the emerging Local Plan did not push the agenda far enough, particularly in regard to matters such as energy efficient construction and biodiversity net gain, but explained that there is a whole suite of new ‘green’ policies all of which are significant steps forward, which are seen to be as far as we can go at the moment but, in terms of deliverability and viability, it would allow for further changes, particularly in regard to the Council’s net zero carbon target by 2030.
He reflected that nowadays Local Plans do not last 15 years and would be in a 5 year cycle of review. It was reasonable to believe that what was written today would not be in place in 10 years’ time and is likely to be subject to fairly significant review in 5 years’ time.
Housing Allowance (P.53 of the Agenda Pack, s 2.7)
The PPM reflected on the differences of opinion with respect of housing target, with those in the development industry considering more could and should be done, and that the housing target provided by the Council would not address housing need and the Council should be allocating more land. Such representations considered that the departure from the standard methodologies was not justified, and questioned the achievability of the Local Plan with respect of housing delivery.
Officers considered the Council’s housing target to be reasonably justified, based on a well evidenced approach, and accepted that much of the large scale growth in North Walsham and Fakenham would not occur prior to 2036.
Significantly, if the standardised methodology was removed, as had been eluded by press following publication of the letter sent by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to backbench MPs, the argument to adopt the standard methodology was weaker. This would make the Council’s position more defensible.
Distribution of Growth. (P.53 of the Agenda Pack, s 2.8 and 2.9)
The PPM stated that the contentious debate largely focused on small growth villages, with growth in the towns broadly supported. He noted that there were arguments against individual sites but nothing against the logic of putting growth in the larger settlements in the District. The Policy approach for Small Growth Villages is to allow 6% growth on small unallocated sites, allowing for infill development and development outside the settlement boundaries subject to compliance with a range of criteria.
Whilst it was anticipated that only 400 dwellings would be produced through the small growth villages, the arguments against were critical on service provision in those areas, considering it to be unsustainable growth, or occupied by 2nd home owners. Officers were satisfied that the approach was the correct one for the reasons outlined.
Infrastructure provision and viability (P.53 of the Agenda Pack, s 2.10)
The PPM advised that Officers considered that the plan sets out an ambitious growth strategy, well supported by infrastructure, and the approach was considered to be necessary, reasonable, proportionate and costed. In order to ensure the right information is submitted, Officers have introduced a range of validation requirements which would aid the Development Committee to reach decisions, help the Local Authority register applications, noting this would be at a cost when making a planning application.
Employment (P.55 of the Agenda Pack, s 2.16 and 2.17)
The PPM considered there to be some debate about the adequacy of employment land supply, and stated that Officers had identified in the Local Plan a supply of land that, based on historic take-up rates would be suitable for around 50 or 60 years. However, this did not tell the full picture as the land was distributed across the district and was concentrated in some locations.
The PPM commented that policy E3 of the plan addressed development outside of designated employment land and was analogous to the rural exceptions policy, but for employment development. He was satisfied that as the Council had a flexible policy allowing for employment development away from Employment Land, absolute supply was less critical with respect of consideration, and Officers did not believe there was a compelling need for more Employment Land than had been specified.
Regarding Tourism policy issues, the emerging Local Plan takes the view that the Council would not support new build tourism accommodation, including static caravans, in the countryside policy area. He reflected that this was a deliberate policy choice, previously debated at the Working Party, and noted historic placement of caravan sites in the district in the 1960’s.
Cllr N Dixon sought confirmation whether, on existing tourist accommodation sites (which otherwise would have been excluded from the emerging Local Plan), if replacement was permitted for those sites of a lower quality.
He recited Policy E3, and added that first priority would be given to allocated, designated employment sites, before then being opened to alternative sites, with a positive presumption for permission.
Cllr N Pearce left the meeting at 11.42am.
Cllr J Toye commented that small growth villages provided employment through way of village shops, garages and pubs, employing local people, and spoke favourably of these businesses growing and expanding and the need for increased housing to sustain these communities. He was assured that this had been covered off within the emerging Local Plan.
The Meeting took a break at 12.05pm and resumed at 12.18pm.
The ADP left the meeting at 12.05pm.
The PPM advised of the distinction between schedules 3 and 4, with schedule 4 including the proposed minor modifications. He noted that there was no distinction in the legislation between minor and main modifications and it was a matter of judgement. It was broadly understood that in labelling something as a ‘main modification’ it would be a matter in which the Planning Inspector for the Local Plan would consult on publically, at their discretion. Minor modifications proposed amendments to correct grammatical or typographical anomalies, or small tweaks to policy without changing the intention of the policy. The PPM advised there may be instances in which the Inspector considered something presented as a minor modification to be a main modification, worthy of consultation.
The PPM proceeded to go through schedule 3 from p.187 onwards and discussed the distinction between spatial strategic policies and other policies in the plan as required by the NPPF. He noted that an appendix would be included within the plan listing whether a policy was strategic or not, importantly Local Neighbourhood Plans had to comply with strategic policies of a Local Plan. He further commented on other minor modifications including the inclusion of references to the East Marine Plan and updates to the Glasgow Climate Pact (post Reg-19) providing contextual information.
The PPM continued to go through the schedule from page 192, and highlighted that additional information had been introduced to explain the distinction between small, medium and high turbine, which would aid applicants and decision makers. Page 193 included textual updates and clarifications, nothing which changed polices themselves. The PPM noted changes on page 194, Coastal Management Adaptation, providing clarity that the policy is about reducing risk but offering a degree of flexibility with its wording. On Page 195 the PPM noted the submission pertaining to Bio-diversity net-gain (modification 3.10.10) which related to the type of development necessary to demonstrate net biodiversity gain, he commented that the policy as drafted in the plan referred to ‘all development should deliver 10% biodiversity net gain’ and the intention of the legislation, when published, would be to exempt small scale development proposals from the requirement. The PPM proposed that there should be a development threshold, i.e if building a new house this would need to demonstrate bio diversity net-gain but not for a minor porch extension.
Cllr P Fisher left the meeting at 12.40pm
The PPM continued to go through schedule 3 from p. 201 and noted the proposed modifications and included some slight rewording and the inclusion of clearer criteria. P.204 referenced the NNPF which may be subject to change with the new NPPF which would require Officers to go through and align references, and a change in wording from ‘should’ to ‘must’ strengthening the language. P.209 included changes to working from ‘entirety of the structural elements’ to ‘a substantial proportion of the structural elements’ allowing for greater flexibility.
Cllr P Grove Jones left the meeting at 12.58pm.
P.212 included considerations for policy E3, which the PPM advised would be returned to the working party as requested earlier in the meeting. The PPM continued to note the changes from p.13 – 215 before reiterating the Officers recommendation.
IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED by 8 votes for.
Members of the Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party recommend to Cabinet that the Schedules of proposed modifications along with the Proposed Submission version of the Local Plan be submitted for independent examination.
To delegate minor amendments in the finalisation of the submission version & Schedules and associated documents to the Planning Policy Manager in conjunction with the Policy Team Leader and Portfolio Holder. |
Supporting documents: