23 JULY 2012
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
K E Johnson (Chairman)
Mrs S A Arnold (Vice-Chairman)
M J M Baker
B Cabbell Manners
Mrs A R Green
P W High
T Ivory
P Williams
D Young
Local Members/Observers
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Mr T FitzPatrick, Mr R Reynolds
Officer
Mr M Ashwell - Planning Policy and Property Information Manager
(7)
CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENT
(8)
The Chairman welcomed members of the public to the meeting. A public question
had been received regarding Agenda Item 6(2). This would be brought forward on
the Agenda.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
An apology for absence was received from Councillor N D Dixon.
(9)
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 28 May 2012 were approved as a correct record
and signed by the Chairman.
(10)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which he wished to
bring before the Working Party.
(11)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Mr B Cabbell Manners declared a personal and non-pecuniary interest. His son
attended the college which owned some of the land under discussion.
(12)
RESPONSE TO NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK – CORE
STRATEGY POLICY HO3
The Working Party considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports which discussed the
potential impacts of the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework in
relation to the Councils adopted policy on affordable housing in the countryside.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
1
23 July 2012
a) The Council needed to look at new ways of delivering affordable housing in rural
areas.
b) Some Members expressed concern that affordable housing units might not be
allocated to local people. However the proposals were likely to be for rural
exception schemes which would be subject to the Local Lettings Policy.
c) In response to a question about how additional affordable housing could be
provided, the Planning Policy and Property Information Manager said that there
were a number of models which could be looked at.
RESOLVED
That the Working Party recommends to Cabinet that in response to the
NPPF the Council resolves to support the inclusion of elements of
market housing within rural exception schemes which otherwise comply
with the provisions of Policy H03 subject to:
Clear demonstration that the inclusion of market housing is
necessary to deliver affordable dwellings which otherwise would not
be provided.
That the quantity of affordable dwellings exceeds the quantity of
market housing.
(13)
FAKENHAM DEVELOPMENT BRIEF
The Working Party considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports which provided a
summary of the representations made in relation to the Fakenham Development Brief
following the recent consultation and recommends that the brief is not approved at
this stage.
A public question was received from Mr S Jacklin of Kickstart, Fakenham. The
Chairman thanked him for raising some relevant points.
The Planning Policy and Property Information Manager said that the papers had
been circulated to Members in advance and work on the Fakenham Development
Brief had been ongoing for a considerable time. The recommendation to defer a
decision at this stage was for further consideration of a number of issues, including
access.
The land had already been allocated for development. The Council had to decide
how it would be developed. The Development Brief was a blueprint establishing the
key principles for future development of the site. A consultation had produced 59
representations which were recorded in full in an appendix to the officer’s report. The
representations had highlighted some key issues:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Traffic management and circulation.
Employment.
Infrastructure and services.
Lack of integration with existing town/community.
Some minor issues had also been raised which would be addressed by amending
the Brief.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
2
23 July 2012
Some of the Highways work, including bus gates, would need to be reconsidered in
light of the responses from local people. It was proposed to retain the public open
spaces. The area would be designated a village with a village centre, including a
small retail development and a drive-through hotel on the road frontage. There was
local concern that there should be a swimming pool. However it was not reasonable
to ask a developer to provide a swimming pool in Fakenham because there was no
direct connection with the development.
The report was discussed:
a) The Chairman said that the Council didn’t want to proceed with the Brief without
addressing local concerns.
b) In response to a question from the Vice Chair the Planning Policy and Property
Information Manager said that a petrol station was not proposed as part of the
plan for the hotel scheme at this stage. He would not rule it out, however, as the
development could take 10 – 15 years and Briefs could change in this time.
Answering a question from Mrs A Green he said that a recent Leisure study had
identified a need for a quality hotel in North Norfolk.
c) Details of the bus service would be worked out through the planning applications
and negotiations between the developer, bus companies and Norfolk County
Council.
d) In reply to a question about brown field sites in Fakenham, the Planning Policy
and Property Information Manager said that, even if they were all developed,
enough housing would not be produced. Brown field sites were needed as well as
the development, not instead of.
e) Responding to a question about surface water the Planning Policy and Property
Information Manager said that the process for consents for drainage schemes
was about to change to Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems.
f) Mr T Ivory, referring to the community facility in the Brief, suggested that the
existing community facility should be used. The Planning Policy and Property
Information Manager said that the facility was intended for the new development,
not the whole town of Fakenham. The Brief would be amended if the facility was
not considered necessary.
g) The Brief had not specified a site for the swimming pool but it could be developed
on the sites marked as public use or public open spaces.
h) Mr R Reynolds, a local Member, expressed concern regarding traffic issues in
Water Moor Lane, Rudham Stile Lane and Claypit Lane.
i) Mr B Cabbell Manners considered that the roundabout on the bypass was a
retrograde step and would impede traffic flow.
j) Mr M J M Baker suggested that the retail area should be nearer the centre of the
development, otherwise it was unlikely to attract a developer.
k) Further consideration would be given to a suggestion by Mrs A ClaussenReynolds that a skate park should be included in the development.
l) It was uncertain how many allotments would be included in the development. The
allotments would be offered to Fakenham Town Council.
m) In response to a question from Mrs A Green the Planning Policy and Property
Information Manager said that the poultry farm had expressed a willingness to
relocate.
n) Mr P W Moore suggested that, in the interests of road safety, industrial road
entrances should be segregated from residential ones.
o) In reply to a Member’s question the Planning Policy and Property Information
Manager said that Tattersett Business Park had been allocated for employment
use for industries that would not be suitable near residential areas.
p) The Planning Policy and Property Information Manager said that it would be
necessary to look at a traffic assessment, incorporating the issues that had been
raised.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
3
23 July 2012
It was proposed by Mrs S A Arnold, seconded by Mr M J M Baker and
RESOLVED
That the Working Party declines to recommend approval of the Brief at
this stage pending further consideration in relation to:
The traffic circulation impacts of the proposed development on
the existing highway network to include the submission of a
Transport Impact Assessment to inform the access strategy.
Further consideration of the green infrastructure strategy and the
potential to redistribute both formal and informal open space to
ensure its better integration within the development.
Incorporation of textual changes to the brief as outlined in the
‘response’ section of Table 1 of this report.
The Chairman thanked the members of the public and assured them that their
concerns would be taken into consideration.
The meeting closed at 11.15 am.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
4
23 July 2012