OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
PLANNING POLICY & BUILT HERITAGE WORKING PARTY – 20 AUGUST 2012
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
RESPONSE TO NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK – CORE
STRATEGY POLICY HO9 and EC2
This report discusses the potential impacts of the publication of the National
Planning Policy Framework in relation to the Councils adopted policy on the re-use
of rural buildings.
1. Introduction
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) consolidates and replaces most of
the national planning policy advice published by Government in the last decade
including Planning Policy Statements (PPSs), Circular 05/2005 in relation to Planning
Obligations, and a number of advisory letters providing interpretation of various bits
of Government guidance. The new framework is applicable to both Plan making
(policy formulation) and the determination of individual planning applications. A new
single Framework document was published on 27th of March and the previous
advice was formally cancelled.
The Government expects that as a result of the new framework those Councils with
adopted policies may wish, or need to, review their policies and the framework
includes a 12 month transitional period to allow for this.
2. Policy approach to the re-use of rural buildings
At the meeting of the Working Party on 28th May 2012 members considered a
discussion paper in relation to the Council’s current approach to the re-use of rural
buildings which explained adopted policies, the degree to which they comply with the
NPPF, and a number of alternative approaches that could be taken. At that meeting
members appeared to express a preference for a policy approach which would allow
for residential uses in good quality buildings throughout the district, rather than in
limited locations as is currently the case, but would nevertheless also support and
protect those buildings providing employment and community facilities.
3. Option 5 – The Preferred approach?
The NPPF, consistent with previous Government planning statements, continues to
emphasise the need to support the growth of rural enterprise through policies that
allow the conversion of rural buildings (Para 28). Policy EC2 of the Core Strategy
which allows the re-use of rural buildings for economic purposes continues to provide
a sound policy framework to support employment generating uses across the
countryside. As discussed previously it is within the housing section of the NPPF that
a shift in national policy is apparent with the indication that isolated dwellings may be
acceptable in the countryside ‘where such development would re-use redundant or
disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting’(Para 47-55).
Although mindful of the scope this potentially provides for boosting housing supply,
such an approach without qualification, could result in an undesirable form and
pattern of development in North Norfolk, in particular:
Conversion of and retention of poor quality buildings across the countryside.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
1
20 August 2012
Result in large number of new dwellings in the countryside and depart from the
pattern of growth as set out in the Spatial Strategy.
Negative impact on the character and appearance of the countryside - a principal
element in the rural character of North Norfolk , enjoyed be residents and visitors.
Militate against the growth and retention of economic uses in the rural area.
Option 5 was developed with these risks in mind and if adopted would:
Continue to allow economic use of any structurally sound rural building as such
proposals would comply with adopted Policy EC2.
Extend the opportunity for residential uses to all good quality disused buildings of
architectural, historic or landscape merit irrespective of building location.
Allow for the residential re-use of buildings already in use for an alternative
purpose (holiday, economic and community uses) following an assessment of the
benefits or viability of retaining the existing use.
Members were supportive of an approach that recognised the potential of the better
quality redundant rural buildings across the district as a housing resource and
considered that in the context of the NPPF that the locational requirement for these
disused buildings included as part of Policy HO9 (in the identified HO9 zone) was no
longer justified. In effect the Council should no longer restrict residential uses of
vacant rural buildings merely on the grounds of the buildings less ‘sustainable’
location.
Policy HO9 currently includes a building quality criteria, which excludes buildings of
no inherit value as being suitable for residential conversion. This criterion has a dual
purpose of protecting the countryside from excessive development pressure and
retaining a stock of buildings more suitable to economic use. Members expressed a
strong view that such a building quality test should continue to apply and was justified
at a local level.
Buildings not disused, but already in non-residential uses were also discussed at the
Working Party meeting in May. Such buildings are not explicitly referred to in the
NPPF given the reference to isolated dwellings potentially being acceptable, relates
only to buildings that are redundant or disused. Nevertheless consideration needs to
be given to the approach that should be taken to those buildings already in use for
other purposes where the owner wishes to pursue residential conversion. Policy HO9
currently applies to not just redundant buildings but also those where a change of
use is being sought i.e holiday to permanent residential. Members considered the
implications of identifying these buildings as a potential source of housing particularly
in the context of the objective of continuing to support the rural and tourist
economies. Discussion relating to these buildings appeared to identify three distinct
categories of building:
1. Buildings in holiday use - Over the last two decades both Local Plan and Core
Strategy policies have been successful in facilitating the conversion of former
barns and other rural buildings to holiday use. These developments have
been varied in their nature consisting of individual holiday units and groups of
units occupied as private holiday homes/second homes as well as holiday
complexes of self-catering accommodation with supporting facilities. It is this
latter category that most effectively supports the tourist economy and formed
the justification for the change in holiday occupancy conditions introduced in
2008 (adoption of the Core Strategy). Core Strategy Policy EC8 already
seeks to retain a supply of tourist accommodation and offers a degree of
protection from the unchallenged loss of larger sites (5 or more self-catering
units). Those buildings in second home/private holiday home use would not
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
2
20 August 2012
be subject to consideration under existing Policy EC8 and it is arguable
whether change of occupancy would have any adverse economic impact.
2. Buildings in employment generating uses – A significant number of buildings
in rural areas are in commercial use. The loss of these businesses and the
source of rural employment they provide would be an undesirable
consequence of a more permissive approach to residential conversion. Policy
HO9 includes reference to ‘proposals that would result in the loss of a
significant number of jobs will not normally be permitted’. This provides the
opportunity to consider the loss of the current employment use but in the
context of a more permissive approach to residential may require
strengthening in order to ensure that viable commercial uses are not lost.
3. Buildings in community uses – Important local facilities such as schools,
convenience stores, pubs and public halls etc would continue to be subject to
Policy CT3 Provision and Retention of Local Facilities and Services. This
policy presumes against the loss of beneficial community uses unless it is
shown that alternatives are available or continuation of the existing use is not
viable.
4. Implementation
Policy H09 controls the locations where residential conversion will be permitted
by designating ‘zones’ on the adopted Proposals Map and requiring buildings to
lie within these zone if residential use is to be permitted (criteria 1 of Policy H09).
Deletion of this requirement alongside retention of the remainder of the policy,
together with the retention of Policies EC2 and EC8 would allow for residential
uses across the district but only in good quality buildings but would retain policy
protection for desirable economic uses including larger holiday complexes.
Recommendation
That the Working Party recommends to Cabinet that in response to the NPPF the
Council adopts the following revised policy approach to the re-use of rural
buildings:
i.
The economic re-use of rural buildings will be supported and full
weight will continue to be applied to Policy EC2.
ii.
In relation to the application of Policy H09 and residential conversion
that weight be attached to the NPPF with the affect that:
Proposals for the reuse of disused or redundant buildings will be subject to
compliance with criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5 but not criteria 1 which limits location.
Proposals for the change of use/variation of occupancy of buildings in
holiday use to allow residential use will be subject to compliance with
criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5 and where applicable Policy EC8 but not criteria 1 in
relation to location.
Proposals for the change of use of all other commercial buildings will be
subject to compliance with criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5 and a presumption that
those providing a significant number of jobs (three or more) should
normally be retained in employment uses.
(Source: Mrs T Armitage, Senior Planning Officer, ext 6304)
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
3
20 August 2012
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
STALHAM DEVELOPMENT BRIEF
This report provides a summary of the representations made in relation to the
Stalham Development Brief following the recent consultation and recommends that
the brief is not approved at this stage.
INTRODUCTION
The adopted Site Allocations Development Plan (Policy ST01) allocates
approximately 9 hectares of land off Ingham Road, Stalham for a mixed use
development comprising residential development, community and employment uses,
and a public park. Adopted Development Plan policy requires the prior preparation of
a development brief to inform detailed proposals for the site.
Details of a draft brief were reported to the Working Party at the meeting on 28 May
2012 when it was agreed that this should be the subject of public consultation. The
consultation took place from between 2nd and 30th July. This included a permanent
exhibition at Stalham library and a ‘drop-in’ event held at the Baptist Church Hall on
12th July when Council officers were present to discuss the draft brief with members
of the public. Details of the brief have also been available on the Council’s website.
A copy of the ‘Conceptual Masterplan’ which forms an integral part of the draft brief is
attached as Appendix A.
This report provides a summary of the representations that have been made and
indicates where changes to the brief are considered necessary prior to it being
formally approved by the Council.
THE PURPOSE OF THE BRIEF AND WHAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AT THIS
STAGE.
A Development Brief comprises an intermediate step between the formal allocation of
a site for development and the grant of planning permission. A brief can include
varying degrees of detail but its main purpose is to lay down a set of standards
against which future development proposals can be considered. They are particularly
beneficial on large mixed use sites where it is expected that development will
progress over a number of years or be undertaken by a number of separate
developers. The preparation of a brief provides an important opportunity for key
consultees and the wider public to influence the final form of development.
Policy ST01 of the Site Allocations Development Plan requires that the brief for
Stalham should include details of:
No more than 160 dwellings at a density of not less than 30 dwellings per
hectare
Not less than 2 hectares of land for community and low-key employment uses
A neighbourhood park, not less than 2 hectares
Footpath and cycle links through the site and suitable footpaths linking to the
town centre
Consideration of the brief is not an opportunity to amend adopted policies which in
the case of the site allocations already approve the principal of the land being
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
4
20 August 2012
developed, the quantum of development, and the mix of uses. Neither should the
brief attempt to predetermine issues of detail that can be considered at planning
application stage when specific proposals will be made.
REPRESENTATIONS AND SUGGESTED RESPONSE
A total of 8 representations were made from members of the public. These can be
viewed in full, together with the responses from Stalham Town Council and Sutton
Parish Council, and Consultees in the ‘Responses to Public Consultation’ attached
as Appendix B.
Certain of the public representations have raised issues relating to the site’s
suitability for development in principle. As the planning process has moved beyond
this stage these matters are not referred to below but can be seen in the Appendix.
Three main issues arise from the comments received; traffic management, the
employment provision and the capacity of infrastructure and services to cope with the
development. A summary of the comments received, relevant consultee comments
and an officer response are made below under each of these headings.
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
Comments received from members of the public, Stalham Town Council and
Sutton Parish Council can be summarised as follows:
That the existing road network in the vicinity of the site is unsuitable to cater
for additional traffic resulting from the development. In particular congestion
problems will be exacerbated where Ingham Road, Yarmouth Road, High
Street and Lower Staithe Road converge together at the existing pair of miniroundabouts.
Traffic from the site travelling south out of Stalham is likely to use Yarmouth
Road because of delays exiting the town on to the A149 adjacent to the
Tesco store. Yarmouth Road is already busy, particularly at school dropping
off and picking up times. The carriageway is narrow in places. Footpaths are
narrow or absent in places. Speeding traffic is already a problem. Increased
traffic using Yarmouth Road will increase traffic danger, particularly to
pedestrians (including school children).
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - (following attendance at the public ‘drop-in’
event and advice on the public responses received) comments that the issues raised
should be explored in a supporting Transport Assessment, although at this stage
there is no hard evidence that any of them are material issues which require a
fundamental re-think on the allocation.
Officer Response:
One of the main reasons for this site being selected as an allocation was its
sustainable location in relation to the town centre and local services such as schools
and medical facilities, which should help to limit the volume of traffic journeys arising
from the new development. In addition the suitability, in principle, of the surrounding
road network to accommodate development of this site was accepted at the time of
the allocation being adopted. However the precise details of access routes in and out
of the site still need to be agreed, together with any necessary associated off-site
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
5
20 August 2012
road improvements. These are fundamental issues that a development brief should
address and it is clear from the responses received that the consequences of traffic
movements generated from the site are a primary local concern. The perception
being that there are existing inadequacies in the local road network with resultant
traffic problems, and that the proposed development will only add to this.
The site has two road frontages, Ingham Road and Yarmouth Road. The draft brief
proposes vehicle access to the housing to be via Ingham Road and to the
employment/community uses via Yarmouth Road, with no connecting route between
the two. As referred to above there is local concern about an increase in traffic along
Yarmouth Road, including commercial traffic arriving from and exiting on to it.
However altering the currently proposed arrangement would not necessarily reduce
significantly the number of vehicles associated with the development using Yarmouth
Road.
The established method of assessing the traffic implications of a development
proposal of this size is by means of a Transport Assessment (TA). A TA would
quantify the amount of traffic generated by the proposal, model traffic movements to
and from the site in terms of types, times and volumes and assess the suitability of
the proposed and existing highway network to accommodate the proposed
development. Developers normally commission a TA and the Local Highway
Authority assesses it. A TA is normally submitted with a planning application, but
where a development brief is required to inform a future application, and where traffic
is clearly a contentious issue, it is logical that a TA is prepared to inform the brief.
The Highway Authority has endorsed this approach and officers consider this should
be done to better inform the final version of the brief.
EMPLOYMENT PROVISION
Comments received from members of the public, Stalham Town Council and
Sutton Parish Council can be summarised as follows:
Would prefer light industrial units to be located at the north-eastern end of the
site. (Stalham Town Council).
The site is not fit for purpose to have commercial / employment uses because
of the inadequacy of the local road network. Traffic associated with such
uses would pass through residential areas (and in the vicinity of schools) in
Stalham and Sutton.
Uncertainty over the type of employment uses which would take place on the
site.
Lack of employment opportunities in Stalham for new residents. Concern that
employment uses on the site would provide little in terms of numbers of jobs.
Lack of landscaping buffer between the employment land and existing
residential properties.
Norfolk County Council (Planning) - pleased to see some modest commercial use
proposed and feels it is in scale and in keeping with the town, which hopefully will
generate footfall in the town centre during and after working hours. However, the
screening between it and the new housing development looks insufficient. If
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
6
20 August 2012
businesses thought they were going to be in conflict with neighbours, it would reduce
the attractiveness of the site.
Officer Response:
Inclusion of employment land - It is an important principal of the mixed use land
allocations in the Site Allocations Development Plan that they deliver across a
number of strategic objectives and not just deliver housing development. The
provision of employment land as part of the site’s development is an integral part of
this allocation, the inclusion of which should form part of the development brief. The
policy refers to not less than 2 hectares of community and ‘low key’ employment
generating uses, but does not define the amount of land to be split between these
two uses. The ‘conceptual masterplan’ (Appendix A) indicates the community and
employment uses in one combined area at the south-eastern part of the site with the
community uses fronting on to Yarmouth Road. A larger proportion of this area is
identified for employment uses. Whilst there is uncertainty at this stage as to the
future demand of these different types of uses, it is considered that the brief should
require a minimum of 0.5 ha. given over to community use.
Type of employment uses -There is understandable concern from nearby residents
regarding the nature of employment uses which could locate on the site. The
allocation policy specifically refers to ‘low-key’ employment uses. The draft brief
refers to employment uses falling within Class B1 (of the Town and Country Planning
(Use Classes) Order). Class B1 includes offices, research and development
premises and ‘light’ industrial uses (defined for planning purposes as uses which can
be carried out in a residential area without detriment to the amenity of the area by
reason of noise, vibration, fumes etc). However the intention behind the allocation
policy reference to ‘low-key’ uses was also to ensure this applied equally to the type
of traffic serving them. The draft brief assumes that traffic associated with Class B1
uses will comprise largely of cars and small vans. It is considered that the brief
should emphasise this requirement more firmly, specifying that the acceptability of
employment uses on the site will be assessed not only in terms of compliance with
the definition of Class B1, but also not resulting in the likelihood of high levels of
traffic movements or attracting vehicles other than (in the main), vans and cars.
On this basis there should be no reason to object to the provision of such land uses
in this area. Future applications for planning permission would need to be assessed
as to the suitability of individual proposals in terms of meeting these requirements. It
is also considered that the ‘conceptual masterplan’ should include greater separation
between the employment land and existing / proposed residential properties than
currently shown, by means of the provision of a wider landscaping buffer.
Location of employment land - There is no specific reason why the community and
employment uses need to be on the same part of the site. Stalham Town Council
have suggested that the employment land should be on the north-eastern part of the
site (adjacent to what will be the new boundary with the open countryside). However
this would mean that access to the employment land would have to be via Ingham
Road, something that the Highway Authority has previously advised against given the
proximity with the High School. This is again a matter which could be better informed
by the submission of a Transport Assessment.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES
Comments received from members of the public, Stalham Town Council and
Sutton Parish Council can be summarised as follows:
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
7
20 August 2012
Concern over adequacy of existing sewerage and surface water drainage
systems to cater for the new development. Evidence that they fail to cope at
present.
Pressure upon local schools and doctors’ surgeries.
Anglian Water – do not envisage any significant constraints in providing foul
drainage from the site in terms of treatment and the network. Recommends the use
of SuDs (Sustainable Drainage System) for surface water with a connection with the
surface water sewer as a last option.
Environment Agency – advises that the consent issued for discharge from Stalham
Waste water Treatment Works has taken into account the planned growth at the
development site (ST01), so whilst the is a risk that there will be a deterioration of
downstream water quality, such a deterioration is considered to be ‘planned’ and
consequently the Agency will not be objecting to the development.
Supportive of the use of SuDs, sustainable construction methods, water efficiency,
energy / resource efficiency and ecological enhancement.
Broads Drainage Board - raises no objection. Pleased to see the likely use of SuDs
and requirement for a Flood Risk Assessment.
Officer Response:
The draft brief recognises that it will need to be demonstrated that there is adequate
capacity in the foul sewage network and treatment works to accommodate the new
development, and recognises that there are local concerns regarding the network in
the town. It also recognises that further detail will need to be submitted with a
planning application together with on-going dialogue with the regulatory bodies.
However the responses received above from Anglian Water and the Environment
Agency indicate that this is not an issue which will be a stumbling block on
development of the site.
The use of SuDs is the clear preference in terms of dealing with surface water run-off
from the new development, and there is the opportunity to provide for this within part
of the 2 hectares of public open space. The draft brief recognises this opportunity
and goes on to state that surface water run-off from the site must not increase the
risk of flooding elsewhere. A Flood Risk Assessment will need to be submitted with a
planning application and this will look in detail at the measures proposed in relation to
surface water run-off.
The County Council has previously indicated that there is capacity in all local schools
to accommodate the new housing development. If this situation has changed at the
submission stage of a planning application a developer (financial) contribution would
be required.
OTHER ISSUES
The draft brief is silent as to the provision of the public park and bringing forward of
the land for community/employment uses in relation the residential development. The
brief should address the need for a phasing agreement as part of a planning
application to secure the timed provision of the public park and access to serve the
employment/community use land.
The County Council has referred to the site being within a mineral resource
safeguarding area. These ‘safeguarded’ sites recognise the potential value of
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
8
20 August 2012
underlying mineral deposits, in this case sand and gravel, and the adopted Norfolk
Mineral and Waste Core Strategy requires that consideration be given to the
practicalities of working these before development takes place or as part of the
development scheme. This policy should be referred to in the brief.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Working Party declines to recommend approval of the brief at this
stage pending further consideration in relation to:
Preparation of a Transport Assessment to help inform the access/traffic
arrangements proposed for the site, in particular in relation to a
preferable location of the employment land and to any necessary offsite road improvements and traffic measures.
A minimum of 0.5 ha being designated for community use.
An increase in the amount of boundary ‘buffer’ landscaping between the
employment land and existing/proposed residential land.
Clarity on the issue of phased implementation of the public park and
access to serve the employment/community use land.
(Source: Mark Ashwell, Planning Policy Manager, ext 6325)
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
9
20 August 2012