Agenda item 3 .
7 DECEMBER 2015
Minutes of a meeting of the PLANNING POLICY & BUILT HERITAGE WORKING PARTY
held in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00 am when there
were present:
Councillors
Mrs A Arnold (Chairman)
R Reynolds (Vice-Chairman)
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs J English
Mrs A Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P High
N Pearce
S Shaw
Ms M Prior – observing
R Shepherd - observing
Officers
Mr M Ashwell – Planning Policy Manager
36.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J Punchard and Mrs V
Uprichard. Apologies were also received from Councillor N D Dixon, Portfolio Holder
for Business & Economic Development.
37.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 9 November 2015 were approved as a correct
record and signed by the Chairman.
38.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Working Party.
39.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No interests were declared.
40.
PLANNING POLICY UPDATE
The Planning Policy Manager gave an update on the work of the Planning Policy
Team, with particular focus on the review of the Local Plan.
Members commented on the report and the Planning Policy Manager answered
Members’ questions:

All Norfolk authorities were working to the same time period, 2016-36. The point
1




















at which plans were produced could vary but the start date would be the same for
all.
The Duty to Co-operate did not mean everyone had to agree, but the Inspector
would want to know why agreement had not been reached and what had been
done about it. Failure to co-operate was the main reason why plans did not
succeed.
North Norfolk’s Local Plan was the oldest and the Duty to Co-operate Forum
recognised that the review needed to be driven forward.
North Norfolk’s Plan pre-dated the NPPF and there were some tensions in the
policy approach.
North Norfolk chaired the Housing Group. There was currently no evidence of
‘nimbyism’ amongst the authorities.
There was a need for the consultation to be well publicised.
A panel of non-planners had been set up to road-test all publications to ensure
they were easily understood.
To keep Members informed, all Members had been invited to meetings of the
Working Party and to the site visits which were taking place following the
meetings. Information would be circulated via a quarterly newsletter which was
widely distributed, and through the Members’ Bulletin.
It was important that the difference between Section 106 and CIL was
understood. It had been suggested that a bite-size training session could be
arranged.
It was noted that a training session for Parish and Town Councils held at the
Council Offices had not been well attended. However, planning training sessions
which had been held around the District had been well attended by Parish and
Town Councils.
It was suggested that direct contact with larger estates might be beneficial in the
call for sites.
10,000 houses would be planned for, with sites being allocated for 4,000 and the
remainder through unplanned sites, eg. infill plots. The majority were likely to be
in the 7 towns and Hoveton. Former airfields may present a significant
development opportunity, although they were not well located.
Approved sites would not be carried forward automatically into the new Plan.
There could be issues around deliverability of sites if they had not yet been
developed. Previously allocated sites would be appraised and a decision made
as to whether or not they should be carried forward.
The call for sites was unrestricted. It was possible that service village
methodology would be revisited and a greater number of selected settlements
could result.
Unplanned development could include gardens. It was not possible to write a
policy to specifically exclude development in gardens. It was a matter for
Development Committee to decide if proposals were acceptable. Gardens had
previously been designated as brownfield but were now greenfield.
Concern was expressed regarding infrastructure problems.
Some small villages did not want any development.
There were very few allocated sites in the current plan which had not attracted
any interest at all.
Thought had to be given to other types of allocation, eg. employment. It was not
just about housing.
Preservation of the Countryside was one of the Council’s commitments.
However, this had to be balanced with employment and housing which were also
included in the Corporate Plan.
The Planning Policy Manager explained that brownfield sites were previously
developed land (PDL). There were exceptions – former airfield technical areas
2

were brownfield, whereas runways and open areas were greenfield. Status of
greenfield sites did not change until they were built on.
The Government may in future give automatic outline planning permission on
brownfield sites.
The Working Party noted the report.
41.
NORTH NORFOLK LOCAL PLAN: EVIDENCE SCOPING
The Planning Policy Manager presented a report setting out the requirements of the
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in terms of the evidence needed to
support production of the North Norfolk Local Plan (2016-2036). He sought
delegated authority to commission the required evidence.
The Planning Policy Manager drew attention to the most significant documents which
would form the required evidence, and answered Members’ questions.







Developers would be required to identify those dwellings which would be subject
to a discount. However, identical houses would be sold at different prices.
Councillor J Rest considered that the discounted dwellings could be identified as
they would not be provided with garages.
Developers would rather sell at a discount than provide dwellings for social rent.
Authorities would be able to insist on a mix of tenures.
The preparation of a Defence and Security Assessment was required under the
NPPF. However, it was unlikely that much work would be needed on the
Defence and Security Assessment as there was little defence industry in the
District.
It was advisory to carry out a Water Cycle Study but this was expensive and very
technical. Previously a co-operative statement was prepared by the Environment
Agency, Anglian Water and NNDC.
Starter homes and self-build would apply to exceptions sites.
Councillor Ms Gay expressed concern at the variable quality of reports which had
been carried out under the previous Local Plan.
The Planning Policy Manager acknowledged that some of the previous reports
had been poor and there was always tension between commissioning locally and
commissioning acknowledged experts. Our requirements would be set out in the
commissioning brief.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor Mrs J English and
RESOLVED
1.
That the contents of the table at Appendix B to the report and the
evidence required to support the production of the North Norfolk Local
Plan (2016-2036) be noted.
2.
That Cabinet be RECOMMENDED to delegate power to the Planning
Policy Manager to commission evidence to support the production of
the North Norfolk Local Plan (2016-2036), in consultation with the
Portfolio holder.
3
42.
NORTHERN DISTRIBUTOR ROAD (NDR)
The Working Party noted the report, which gave an update in relation to the Northern
Distributor Road (NDR).
The Planning Policy Manager explained that the main justification for the NDR was
benefits to business.
Councillor R Reynolds was pleased that the NDR would join up with the A1067 and
considered that it would reduce delays for commuters.
Councillor W J Northam stated that the NDR would allow easier access to the
hospital from the Mundesley/North Walsham direction. However, Councillor P W
High stated that it would not assist users of the hospital from the Holt area.
The meeting closed at 11.05 am.
_______________________
CHAIRMAN
18 January 2016
4