19 JANUARY 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 S Arnold (Vice-Chairman) in the Chair
M J M Baker
N D Dixon
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
R Reynolds
Officers
Mr M Ashwell – Planning Policy Manager
(28) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies absence were received from Councillors B Cabbell Manners, Miss B
Palmer, P Williams and D Young.
(29) MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 22 September 2014 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
The Planning Policy Manager updated the Working Party on progress made on the issues discussed at the previous meeting and answered Members‟ questions.
(30) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which he wished to bring before the Working Party.
(31) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No interests were declared.
(32) NATIONAL CHANGES TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND OTHER PLANNING
OBLIGATIONS
The Planning Policy Manager presented a report outlining the changes that
Government had made to the process for requiring affordable housing and other
„planning gain‟ via Section 106 Agreements when determining applications for planning permission. The Government had set a new threshold of ten dwellings below which affordable housing should not be required, with an option to set a lower threshold of five dwellings in designated rural areas.
The Planning Policy Manager referred to the Council‟s Housing Incentive Scheme which had recently been extended to December 2015, which set a threshold of ten dwellings. He recommended that no change be made to the threshold of ten dwellings at the present time and that further consideration be given to this matter in
December 2015 as part of the review of the Housing Incentive Scheme.

(33) ROLL FORWARD OF AONB MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Planning Policy Manager presented a report outlining the content of the Norfolk
Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2014-2019.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones asked if Internal Drainage Boards were represented on the Norfolk Coast Partnership. The Planning Policy Manager confirmed that they were and explained the composition of the Partnership.
In response to a question by the Chairman, the Planning Policy Manager stated that the chalk reef was covered by the Marine Management Plan.
Councillor M J M Baker asked what was currently permitted in terms of the Council‟s
„roll back‟ policy on coastal erosion and whether there was any differentiation between people who had lived for many years in these areas and those who had recently purchased property.
The Planning Policy Manager explained Policy EN12: Relocation and Replacement of Development affected by Coastal Erosion. This allowed businesses and residential properties in areas at risk from erosion in the next 20 years to relocate to areas where development would not normally be permitted. However, very few people had taken up this opportunity. The next plan could consider allocated sites for roll back development. The end result was to remove the risk so there was no differentiation as to who was allowed to develop under this policy.

Councillor R Reynolds considered that there was a need to address where the AONB started and finished visually.
The Planning Policy Manager explained that there were two constraints in the policy; the AONB itself and its setting. The policy did not prevent development within the
AONB but regard should be had to whether or not development would have a significant impact. The area around the AONB, which was its setting, was not defined and it was necessary to make a judgement. The AONB boundaries were not within the Council‟s remit and had been designated in a statutory act. Whilst representations could be made with regard to reviewing the boundary, it was a complex process.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, seconded by Councillor P W High and
RECOMMENDED to Cabinet
That the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management
Plan 2014-2019 is approved.
(34) FAKENHAM DEVELOPMENT BRIEF
The Planning Policy Manager presented a report which summarised the responses to a consultation relating to a Development Brief for the allocated development site at
Fakenham. He drew particular attention to access issues, which was the main concern raised in the representations.
Public Speaker
Mr George Acheson, Chairman of Development and Market Committee, Fakenham
Town Council.
Mr Acheson stated that Fakenham Town Council was broadly in agreement with the brief. The Town Council considered that highway improvements would be necessary prior to closure of Water Moor Lane. The Thorpland Road junction was dangerous and it would be made worse. Relocation of the High School would temporarily increase traffic on Rudham Stile Lane. The need for a second roundabout on Wells
Road would be obviated if Norwich Long Lane were improved. Local people currently used Norwich Long Lane as a rat run as they could get out onto the A148.
The Planning Policy Manager stated that it would understood that Rudham Stile Lane would require improvements. Decisions would need to be made prior to the formation of the roundabout as to the need for off-site highway works including Long
Lane and the treatment of Water Moor Lane. He stated that given the long construction period for development of the site it would be a long time before the junction issue was reconsidered.
Councillor R Reynolds supported Mr Acheson. He stated that the Wells Road junction was well-used and there would be benefit in his suggestion. He understood that some consideration had been given to the closure of Norwich Long Lane.
The Planning Policy Manager stated it had been suggested that Norwich Long Lane would be closed when the roundabout was developed. The options were to improve it or close it. Highway issues had not been finalised.

Councillor R Reynolds stated that he was sympathetic with many of the complaints received and it was important that they were addressed at this time. He was aware that many of the points had been recognised and addressed.
He referred to the changes in the carriageway along the length of Rudham Stile
Lane, which was almost acceptable by North Park and adjacent to the Academy end, dangerous by and over the disused railway bridge, single carriageway in places and with a difficult negotiation at the Thorpland Road junction. Thorpland Road adjoining
Rudham Stile Lane and onto Greenway Lane was narrow and poor and would not sustain a much larger increase in traffic. At the opposite end of Rudham Stile Lane where it joined with Claypit Lane and North Park, Field Lane and the Academy, the traffic was extremely dangerous due to the bridge. There was already congestion at the Claypit Lane traffic lights. He considered that Rudham Stile Lane needed to be upgraded, but that traffic from the majority of the new build could not be accommodated by Rudham Stile Lane, Claypit Lane or Thorpland Road.
He understood that Water Moor Lane could eventually be made one way to the north to continue to take school traffic when the main infrastructure was in place for the large site.
He considered that traffic must be encouraged to flow into the town by exiting the new build by a roundabout onto the A148 and onto Clipbush lane. This would allow a freeflow of traffic with little congestion and support the towns shops and businesses.
He referred to concerns regarding sewage, surface water, schools and amenities etc. but noted from the report that these issues be addressed at the planning stage.
He referred to the planning application for 84 dwellings at Brick Kiln Farm, Rudham
Stile Lane. He had originally considered that the existing entrance could be used temporarily and the development eventually served by the infrastructure of the larger build. However, he had been advised that this was not possible or likely for a number of reasons and the Highway Authority was likely to accept the existing entrance subject to improvements to Rudham Stile Lane. He suggested that the improvements should include upgrading of the road from the site gate past the allotments and adjoining Water Moor Lane, and that the junction of the disused bridge should be removed or bypassed and Water Moor Lane retained for the time being for two way traffic to allow construction traffic to access the site from the A148 subject to restrictions on timing. He also considered that there should be drop off areas on site for construction and work related traffic to alleviate congestion in
Rudham Stile Lane, and that wheel and lorry wash and road cleansing should be part of the Brief.
The Planning Policy Manager stated that the applicant for the current planning application had not demonstrated that Rudham Stile Lane would be suitable or would be capable of being upgraded. However, Officers had not seen the highway proposals being offered and it was premature to suggest that the site would be acceptable.
Councillor N D Dixon considered that the additional paragraph suggested in the report for inclusion in the Brief regarding delivery depended on a proper costed exercise to determine what the physical and social infrastructure would be. There needed to be clarity as to why contributions would be levied so that there would be an equitable contribution all the way through from the early starters to the later starters to ensure that the project was not delivered in part. This would need to be agreed prior to determination of any planning application.

The Chairman considered that it was important that money was put up front.
The Planning Policy Manager stated that the Council could not require all the principal landowners to make a single planning application. With regard to contributions, the typical process was for a bond payment to be made, with the
Council acting as broker.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that, whilst it would be difficult, there needed to be one overall authority dealing with the whole project. He suggested that the
Council should take on the role of main contractor to ensure that all the social infrastructure was built.
The Planning Policy Manager stated that to date the Council had been prepared to act as banker but not as a contractor.
Councillor N D Dixon expressed concern that, whilst the suggested wording was substantially acceptable, developers would be unclear as to what they were expected to contribute and how it would be made up. He considered the Council should be clear as to what the development would look like on completion and that there should be a formula to ensure delivery. Costs would need to be indexed as they would not be the same throughout the development period. He considered that the development should be considered as a whole and how each part fitted together. He agreed that leadership should be provided by the Council to ensure that the project was delivered as it should be. The Council had the ability to co-ordinate everyone involved in the delivery. There was a need to recognise that the pro-rata cost per plot would be different depending on whether the site was brownfield etc.
The Planning Policy Manager stated that there were a number of delivery mechanisms available. The brief was a framework which should be driving the delivery strategy.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that it was important to take bonds as there could be problems if some developers preferred a different approach. She asked how many developers were anticipated and what timescale was envisaged for completion of the development.
The Planning Policy Manager stated that the number of potential developers was unknown, and given the average build rate it could be a 10 year project.
Councillor R Reynolds supported Councillor Dixon‟s comments and considered either his suggested approach or the bond route should be taken.
The Planning Policy Manager stated that the wording, as proposed, recognised that there were a number of delivery strategies and gave the expectation that a delivery strategy would be required.
Councillor Dixon stated that there was a need to ensure that the current planning application which had been submitted for part of the site did not slip under the wire and cause upset at a later date.
The Planning Policy Manager stated that the decisions made on the Brief may have an impact on the consideration of the application.
The Working Party requested a further report on the access strategy.

The Chairman requested that the possibility of the Council being the lead authority be explored. The Planning Policy Manager stated that this would be a matter for consideration in the future.
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor N D Dixon and
RESOLVED
That the amendments outlined in the report and in Appendix 2 be incorporated into the Fakenham Development Brief and
RECOMMENDED to Cabinet
That the Fakenham Development Brief be approved.
(35) MAINTENANCE OF OPEN SPACES
Councillor N D Dixon referred to an issue he had raised at the meeting on 19 May
2014 regarding ongoing maintenance on large developments and the payment of a commuted sum. The Planning Policy Manager had stated that he would prepare an issues and options paper on this matter.
The Planning Policy Manager explained that this was a significant piece of work which he did not currently have the resources to undertake.
Councillor Dixon requested a progress report at the next meeting.
The meeting closed at 11.58 am.