OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
PLANNING POLICY & BUILT HERITAGE WORKING PARTY – 24 JUNE 2013
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
NORTH NORFOLK BUILDINGS AT RISK REGISTER
This report considers the adoption of the Council’s own Buildings at Risk Register
and explains the process by which Listed Buildings and Scheduled Ancient
Monuments come to be identified on the register. It provides a brief list of the
proposed entries in appendix form and advises that a full copy of the draft register
has been placed in the Members room.
1. INTRODUCTION
Among its many functions, North Norfolk District Council has a responsibility to
manage its important stock of 2250 listed buildings and 83 scheduled ancient
monuments (collectively known as heritage assets). This it does principally through
the normal planning process and by using the enforcement powers available. In
addition, it also has the option to maintain a register of heritage assets which are
considered to be „at risk‟. Until a couple of years ago, such a register was compiled
by the County Council on behalf of the districts and was extremely successful at
drawing attention to problem buildings within the County. Occasionally, simply
identifying a building would bring forward repair and reuse proposals from owners.
For this reason, and because it offers a useful monitoring tool of the health of the
District‟s protected buildings, it is now proposed that this Council adopts its own
register.
2. WHAT CONSTITUTES A BUILDING AT RISK?
Building are added to the register where they are considered to be „at risk‟ through
neglect and decay. They are assessed on the basis of condition and where
applicable occupancy (or use). They range from buildings which are virtually on the
point of collapse to those that are just a bit ragged around the edges. This is reflected
in the A-F risk categories outlined below. Entries are confined to Listed Buildings of
all grades and to above ground monuments.
In compiling the register, it is worth mentioning that inclusion does not necessarily
imply criticism of the owners of the sites listed, some of whom will be actively seeking
ways to secure their future. It should also be noted that the register is not a
comprehensive or exhaustive list due to the sheer logistics of visiting all heritage
assets. It has therefore been compiled using the base information contained in the
County Council‟s last register which has then been revised and updated through
recent officer inspections and experience.
3. THE STRUCTURE OF THE REGISTER
As Members can see from the copy lodged in the Members Room, the register is
arranged alphabetically by Parish. Under each entry, the individual building is then
identified along with its designation reference(s) and the date it was listed or
scheduled (where known).
The sub-headings of “Condition” and “Occupancy” then follow under which entries
are graded according to their current state (Very Bad, Poor and Fair) and their use
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
1
24 June 2013
(Occupied, Part Occupied, Vacant and Not Applicable). These are then jointly
assessed, along with the likelihood of finding a solution, to arrive at an appropriate
risk category. These categories correspond to those used by English Heritage who
currently compile their own Heritage At Risk Register for Grade I and Grade II* Listed
Buildings and Scheduled Ancient Monuments. The categories can be summarised as
follow: A. Immediate risk of further rapid deterioration or loss of fabric; no solution agreed.
B. Immediate risk of further rapid deterioration or loss of fabric; solution agreed but
not yet implemented.
C. Slow decay; no solution agreed.
D. Slow decay; solution agreed but not yet implemented.
E. Under repair or in fair to good repair, but no user identified; or under threat of
vacancy with no obvious new user (applicable only to buildings capable of
beneficial use).
F. Repair scheme in progress and (where applicable) end use or user identified;
functionally redundant buildings with new use agreed but not yet implemented.
……with „A‟ being the highest priority for action.
4. USING THE REGISTER
Once adopted, the register will become a dynamic tool in which entries can be
constantly updated, removed and added – the ongoing maintenance to be carried out
by the Conservation, Design & Landscape service as part of their wider management
role. Although the register does not offer any additional legislative powers, it can be
used as part of identifying possible enforcement action (e.g. Repairs or Urgent Works
Notices), and in support of any grant aid opportunities. It will also help in highlighting
reoccurring problems across the District.
The Register will be held principally in hard copy form (a full draft of which can be
viewed in the Members Room). For the purposes of this report, an abridged list of the
proposed entries is attached at Appendix 1 for convenience. In due course, an
option also exists for the register to be publicised on the Council‟s website to raise
wider awareness - the owner‟s contact details would need to be removed in this
event. Regular liaison would also need to take place with English Heritage to ensure
there is some consistency across the two respective registers.
5. THE REGISTER IN SUMMARY
Members will note that 52 buildings have currently been identified as being „at risk‟.
Of these, 18 are ruins and structures which are incapable of beneficial reuse. They
are therefore likely to remain on the register for some considerable time. Of the
remainder, the main use categories involve 8 residential entries, 7 commercial
entries, 6 agricultural entries and 3 ecclesiastic entries. Each of these will have their
own particular problems which may stem from their form, location or ownership and
which undoubtedly require bespoke solutions. Where progress is being made, this is
briefly outlined under the “Comments/Action sub-heading.
RECOMMENDATION
That Members note the contents of the North Norfolk Buildings at Risk
Register and authorise its adoption by the Council.
(Source: Chris Young, Senior Conservation & Design Officer, ext 6138)
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
2
24 June 2013
2.
HOLT DEVELOPMENT BRIEF
This report provides a summary of the representations made in relation to the draft
Development Brief for Land at Heath Farm, Hempstead Road, Holt following the
recent public consultation.
INTRODUCTION
The adopted Site Allocations Development Plan (Policy HO9) allocates
approximately 18.5 hectares of land for a mixed use development comprising
residential development, employment uses, open space and community facilities.
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 14
January 2013 when it was agreed that this should be the subject of public
consultation. The consultation took place from between 22 April and 20 May. This
included a permanent exhibition at Holt library and a „drop-in‟ event held at St
Andrews Church Hall on 30 April 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 „Illustrative Masterplan‟ which forms an integral part of the draft brief is
attached as Appendix 2.
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 HO9 of the Site Allocations Development Plan requires that the brief for Holt
should address the following:
Access from the A148 and sustainable transport
Layout
Phasing (including the phased provision of serviced employment land
Conceptual appearance
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
developed and the mix of uses. Neither should the brief attempt to predetermine
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
3
24 June 2013
issues of detail that can be considered at planning application stage when specific
proposals will be made.
SUMMARY OF THE DRAFT BRIEF
The brief is divided into five main sections:
Planning Policy Context - refers to both local and national planning policies
which are relevant to the site.
Site Analysis - describes the site and its surroundings, ownership details and
relevant elements of its physical environment, including the constraints which
will influence development of the site.
Vision Statement - a vision identifying key components in relation to
development of the site as previously agreed in consultation with the Town
Council.
Development Framework - this forms the main part of the brief. It identifies
the distribution of land uses, details of access, open space provision and
design related principles. Also includes the illustrative masterplan.
Implementation - this describes the likely phasing of development and in
particular what infrastructure and amenity provision is required at each
development phase.
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS
A total of 13 representations were made from members of the public. These can be
viewed in full, together with the responses from Holt Town Council and consultees in
the „Responses to Public Consultation‟ attached as Appendix 3.
As reflected in the relatively low response received to the public consultation the
principle of developing the site as outlined in the brief has not proved to be locally
controversial, Comments received have concentrated more upon certain details of
the overall development and its implementation, notably in relation to the provision of
road and pedestrian access.
Under the following headings the key elements of the brief are discussed together
with an officer response under each heading, in the light of the responses received.
AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT
Policy HO9 refers to the site accommodating approximately 200 dwellings. However
the development brief recognises that the site is actually larger than referred to in the
Site Allocations DPD (approximately 18.5 ha. as opposed to 15.0 ha.) As a
consequence the brief refers to the site accommodating between 275 – 290
dwellings. Only one objection has been received citing too much housing
development and this is made in connection with the absence of sufficient car
parking provision in the town centre. With regard to the amount of employment land
provided, the brief exceeds the amount referred to in Policy HO1 (approximately 5.5
ha. as opposed to 5.0 ha). The remainder of the site would comprise approximately
3.5 ha. of public open space and peripheral landscaping.
Officer Response:
That no changes are made to the amount of development proposed in the brief.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
4
24 June 2013
DISTRIBUTION OF LAND USES
The Illustrative Masterplan which forms an integral part of the development brief
(attached as Appendix 2) shows where the respective housing, employment and
open space is to be distributed across the site. As can be seen from the masterplan,
housing development which would represent the single largest take up of land is
shown to occupy the central and south-western parts of the site; employment uses
on the southern and eastern parts of the site; and open space (a single connecting
area) extending from within the housing development towards the north-western part
of the site.
Once again this aspect of the brief has generated very little comment other than one
suggestion that housing development should front onto Hempstead Road.
Officer Response:
That no changes are made to the distribution of the various land uses as illustrated
on the masterplan accompanying the development brief.
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND PEDESTRIAN LINKAGES
A pre-requisite of any new development is that it provides effective and safe access
both for vehicles and pedestrians / cyclists. In the public responses received, traffic
and access issues constitute the single topic most referred to.
The development brief confirms that a new roundabout access road would serve the
development from the Holt bypass (A148). This access would provide a link through
the existing industrial estate onto Hempstead Road. Hempstead Rd connects with
the A148 and the brief states that measures should be implemented to deter heavy
goods vehicles from using Hempstead Road once the link road is completed (it is
unspecific as to what precisely these measures would be). All the new development
plus the adjoining industrial / commercial premises on Hempstead Road would have
access onto the new link road, with the possible exception of a smaller element of the
housing development (70-75 dwellings) on the western part of the site, which could
potentially be served from Hempstead Road („subject to detailed discussion with the
Highway Authority‟).
In terms of pedestrian / cycle access the brief refers to two routes, one (preferred
primary route) leading from the housing development, through the open space
towards the junction of Hempstead Road and the A148 (where there is a pedestrian
underpass to the town centre); the other (secondary route) from the housing
development through the employment land to Hempstead Road.
The main messages arising from public responses are as follows:
The restriction of heavy goods vehicles using Hempstead Road is supported.
The link road needs to be completed as soon as possible.
Public transport needs to be catered for as part of the development.
Safe, well lit, direct footpaths / cycleways required early on as part of the
development.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
5
24 June 2013
Officer Response:
The main principles of the access arrangements as defined in the brief (i.e. the route
of the link road and pedestrian / cycle linkages) would appear to represent the best
options available for development of the site. However at the time of preparing this
report a formal response to the brief from the Highway Authority was still awaited.
Clearly this has an important bearing on whether any changes need to be made to
the brief to reflect the Highway Authority‟s position. Members will be updated at the
meeting.
PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT
The brief illustrates how the majority of the residential development could be
provided in three sequential phases together with the access infrastructure, open
space and employment land which will be required to be provided with each of these
phases. Similar requirements apply to other parts of the site which the brief
recognises could potentially be developed out of any particular sequence with the
rest of the site.
Public responses regarding the phasing of development relate primarily to the early
completion of the link road and consequent removal of HGV‟s from Hempstead Road
as well as the importance of providing good quality open space facilities for the new
residents.
In terms of completion of the link road the brief states that it would need to be
completed during the second phase of residential development. The exact timing of
this would need to be secured by a S.106 Obligation linked to a planning permission,
but on this basis the road would only be completed after anything up to a maximum
of 200 dwellings had been completed.
In terms of pedestrian / cycle access the brief states that such link(s) towards the
town centre should be provided with the first phase of residential development.
Officer Response:
The phased development of the site as illustrated the brief follows a logical sequence
beginning with a phase of housing which would deliver the road access onto the
A148. There is clearly a preference to deliver the whole of the link road as soon as
possible, but this will be influenced by development viability issues. It is important
that pedestrian links are provided as part of the first phase of housing, as the brief
requires, although the challenge to developers will be secure agreement with
adjoining landowners to achieve this.
Subject to the response from the Highway Authority it is not suggested that any
changes are made to the phasing details as proposed in the brief.
CONCLUSIONS
The consultation undertaken has not raised any fundamental issues with the content
of the draft development brief. Certain changes to the text will be made to reflect
comments received from consultees. Access arrangements to serve the site have
clearly been highlighted as an issue of public concern and the response from the
Highway Authority will have a bearing on any further changes which may need to be
made. It is anticipated that this response will be reported at the meeting.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
6
24 June 2013
RECOMMENDATION:
To be reported following the receipt of comments from the Highway Authority.
(Source: John Williams – Team Leader Major Developments. Ext 6163)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR INFORMATION
3.
LEGISLATION UPDATE – PUBLICATION OF GROWTH AND INFRASTRUCTURE
ACT
This report provides an overview of the provisions of the Growth and Infrastructure
Act in relation to land use planning and explains new allowances for undertaking
development without the need to apply to the Council for planning permission.
1.
Introduction
The new Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 has gained Royal Assent and is now
law. A raft of measures are included which are aimed at kick starting economic
growth. This report outlines the main provisions which variously aim to assist
economic recovery by removing the need for planning permission for some types of
development, streamlining planning application processes, and introducing „special
measures‟ for those Council‟s which do not meet national performance standards.
2.
Key Provisions
In relation to planning the key provisions are:
Section 106 Agreements - The Act allows the modification or discharge of the
affordable housing elements of section 106 planning gain agreements in order to
make developments more viable. Modification of legal agreements has always been
possible but these provisions are intended to streamline the process and remove
previous restrictions on time periods within which amendments were allowed
(previously five years).
New Permitted Development Allowances - The Act enables measures to extend
permitted development rights to allow single-storey rear extensions of up to eight
metres (six for attached dwellings) together with some other extensive alterations
(relaxations) to the rules governing what requires planning permission. (Summary
attached as Appendix 4). A late amendment to the legislation requires neighbours to
be consulted on home extensions that do not require planning permission. This will
be the responsibility of the planning authority which will retain the option to refuse
permission only if neighbour objections are made. These provisions came into force
on the 30th of May as an amendment to the current General Permitted Development
Order.
Many of the new permitted development allowances, including those for residential
house extensions, can only be exercised following a process of prior notification or, in
some cases, prior approval by the planning authority. These processes inform the
authority of intended development and in the case of prior approval allow for
consideration of some limited issues, for example flood risk, but not the principle of
development. Currently these types of process do not attract the payment of an
application fee notwithstanding that they introduce significant additional complexity
and cost to the development management process. Government is considering the
introduction of fees for some prior approval processes but not those relating to house
extensions.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
7
24 June 2013
The planning legislation now defines four categories of development proposal:
Proposals which are minor and not development as defined in the Planning
Act - Planning permission is not required.
Proposals that are development as defined in the Act but are a type of
development that is permitted by the General Permitted Development Order
(GPDO). Planning permission is not required.
Proposals that are development, are permitted development in the GPDO but
the permitted development allowance can only be exercised after a process
of prior notification and no objections - Planning permission is not required.
Proposal that are development and are not permitted development in the
GPDO - Planning permission is required.
In addition to removing the need for planning permission for some types of
development it is likely that these new allowances will impact on the way that some
planning policies will be applied to those developments that do need permission. For
example, the Councils adopted policy of retaining a high percentage of Class A1
shops in town centres is now arguably „null and void‟ as the change of use of shops
up to 150 square metres to another commercial use, such as an estate agents or a
hot food take-away, no longer requires planning permission.
Speed of decision - the Act introduces measures to allow developers the option to
take planning applications to the Planning Inspectorate where a council has
"consistently failed to meet statutory requirements to consider applications on time".
The performance standards that are expected to avoid „special measures‟ have not
been published with the Act but are promised soon and will be linked to the % of
decisions made within the 8 week and 13 week national performance targets.
Other procedural matters -The Act removes the need for the Secretary of State to
approve local development orders (LDOs), which relax planning rules in specific
areas, after they have been drawn up by council‟s. It also includes measures to
speed up the planning application process by ensuring that authorities only seek
„reasonable additional information‟ which is likely to be material to the determination
of applications, allows footpath diversion orders to be made as a parallel process to
securing planning permission, and tightens the rules on the making of applications to
register new village greens.
Collectively the Act represents substantial change to the planning system towards a
less regulatory streamlined process. However some of the changes to the rules
governing what requires planning permission introduce new administrative
complexity, additional cost to the authority and a need to invest in back office
processes and systems.
RECOMMENDATION
This report is for information only.
(Source: Mark Ashwell, Planning Policy Manager
ext. 6325)
Background Documents.
Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013.
General Permitted Development Order 1995 (as amended 2013).
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
8
24 June 2013
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
4.
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORTS AND HOUSING LAND SUPPLY –
PUBLICATION OF AMR AND STATEMENT OF FIVE YEAR SUPPLY OF
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LAND
This report provides an overview of the main development trends in the district in the
period 2011-2013 and measures performance against adopted Core Strategy policy
and corporate objectives and seeks authority to publish Annual Monitoring reports
and Five Year Land Supply Statements.
1. INTRODUCTION
Each year the Council is required to prepare and publish an Annual Monitoring
Report. The report has two key purposes:
a. To report on the progress made in preparing Development Plan documents as
measured against the Council‟s published timetable in the Local Development
Scheme.
b. To report on key indicators in relation to the rates and types of development so
that trends can be monitored and the effectiveness of policies reviewed.
Reports are usually published in December and cover the period running from March
in the preceding year through to April of the monitoring year. This means that when
published the reports are almost a year out of date. This paper covers two separate
monitoring periods commencing from March 2010 through to April 2013.
It has been practice in previous years to produce reports which include a wide range
of monitoring indicators and contextual information relating to Housing, Sustainable
Development, Environment, Economy, Community and Plan Making progress in the
District. This format has been adopted for the 2010/12 joint report but for the 2012/13
period a more targeted approach is suggested with a focus on those indicators which
are related to Corporate Plan growth objectives, including:
Dwellings granted planning permission (market and affordable).
Dwellings built (market and affordable).
Housing trajectory and land supply.
Greenfield/brownfield development proportions.
Residential development density.
House sizes (number of bedrooms).
Development rates for designated employment land.
In most cases indicators are presented at a district wide level but where available,
figures for parishes/wards are included. Each year‟s report includes previous year‟s
performance to allow for annual comparison.
2. HEADLINE RESULTS
The number of dwelling completions in the last two monitoring years was below the
annual average target of 400 dwellings per year that will be required to achieve
overall plan targets (337 in 2011/12, and 242 in 2012/13). The figure of 242 in
2012/13 was just short of the 250 predicted completions identified in the previous
year‟s housing trajectory and identified as a Corporate Plan target. A high proportion
of new dwellings (45%) are either barn conversions or other changes of use and the
new build sector has performed particularly poorly in the last two years.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
9
24 June 2013
Although there is a large supply of allocated residential development sites and a
growing number of sites with planning permissions the completion rates remain
below target and consequently the deliverable land supply is judged to be slightly
below the five year NPPF requirement at 4.68 years (inclusive of a 20% buffer).
The Authority continues to grant high numbers of planning permissions with nearly
1,000 houses being granted planning permission in the last two years excluding the
large allocated site at Wells (120 dwellings), which secured planning permission in
the next monitoring period. On the larger allocated sites there is good reason to be
optimistic in relation to future completion rates with commencement of development
on sites at Cromer, Hoveton and Blakeney and developer interest on most of the
larger allocated sites. However it remains the case that delivery rates will need to
improve markedly to address the cumulative shortfall in dwellings which has been
built up in the last few years.
Reported house prices have started to increase across all types of housing in the
district with growth of between 5% and 9% in the last quarter of 2012. Values for all
house types other than flats are now above those of 2008. New build house builders,
however, report no noticeable improvement.
The take up of designated employment land is a blunt indicator of economic
performance. It is limited to those sites which are formally designated as employment
land in the Core Strategy or Site Allocations Development Plans and consequently
does not reflect wider economic trends in rural employment and town centres. The
District‟s retail sector has performed comparatively well and compared to national
trends shop vacancy rates remain at low levels, although up slightly on previous
years. There continues to be significant interest and investment in large format food
retail stores with permissions/developments at Wells, North Walsham (Waitrose),
Holt, and commencement of development on the Sheringham Tesco and Cromer Lidl
stores. Designated employment land has been developed at Fakenham adjacent to
the Morrisons store and the Scira operations base at Egmere is complete.
Over the two year period Cromer Hospital and Fakenham Medical Centre were
completed and these have substantially enhanced health care facilities in these two
towns and the wider district.
Table A – Summary of key indicators
Indicator
Total
dwellings
granted
planning permission (includes
affordable units)
Affordable
units
granted
planning permission
Total dwellings provided (net
additions)
Affordable dwellings provided.
Years deliverable land supply
% development on previously
developed land
Hectares of employment land
developed (net)
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
Result 2011/12
438
Result 2012/13
536
110
134
337
242
64
4.93
84%
13
4.68
78%
0.85 hectares
0.56 hectares
10
24 June 2013
In relation to plan making, whilst the Authority is not actively preparing new
development plan documents, there have been policy changes to respond to the
NPPF, progress in the preparation of development briefs, commencement of work on
an LDO at Egmere, and the Council is shortly to consider consultation on proposals to
introduce the Community Infrastructure Levy.
3. WHAT IS A FIVE YEAR SUPPLY OF HOUSING LAND IN NORTH NORFOLK?
Housing land supply is expressed as the number of dwellings likely to be built rather
than the quantity of land that is available and is a comparison of the number of
dwellings likely to be built with the annual target for dwellings which will need to be
built if overall Development Plan targets are to be met. In North Norfolk the adopted
Core Strategy requires that a minimum of 8,000 dwellings are built over the 20 year
period from 2001 to 2021. The Authority should therefore plan, on average, to ensure
that at least 400 dwellings can be built in each year. In the first eleven years of the
plan period the rate of new dwelling completions fell behind this annual average
mainly as a result of there being few larger development sites available and the
recent slowdown in the local housing market. Consequently, in the remaining years
of the plan period the Council should plan to make up the deficit.
As of April 2013 the annual average target for new dwellings in the District had risen
from 400 to 495 (inclusive of a 20% buffer) resulting in a five year land supply
requirement of sites suitable for 2,475 dwellings (495 dwellings x 5 years = 2,475
dwellings). This annual requirement has shown a steady increase in recent years and
is a consequence of cumulative annual deficits in provision compounded by a
shortening plan period within which to make up the shortfall.
4. CURRENT HOUSING LAND SUPPLY IN NORTH NORFOLK
Each year the Council produces a Statement of Housing Land Supply. This presents
information on the various anticipated sites for housing development in the District.
This is compiled from a number of sources of information including rates of
development over previous years, planning permission records, dwellings under
construction, and allocated sites in the Site Allocations Development Plan.
Identification of sites that can deliver housing is relatively straightforward, but
estimating how much of this capacity might actually be delivered over a five year
period is much more difficult and inevitably requires some assumptions to be made.
Guidance requires that to „count‟ towards the five year land supply sites must comply
with a number of criteria:
a. In the main they must be specific identifiable sites although some
allowance can be made for „windfall‟ developments (sites which are not
identifiable until such time as planning applications are made) - provided
there is a strong likelihood that such sites will actually be developed within
the period.
b. the identified sites must be available for development now, and
c. they must be suitable for development, and
d. development must be achievable; there should be a reasonable prospect
of the site actually being developed within the applicable five year period.
It is not sufficient to include sites merely because they have planning
permission.
Hence, whilst the Council is currently able to point to a large land supply in the
adopted Site Allocations Development Plan which includes land for around 3,400
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
11
24 June 2013
dwellings it is not able to demonstrate that all of these sites are immediately available
or have a reasonable prospect of being developed within the next five years. Indeed
the Core Strategy is a 15-20 year plan which anticipates that some sites will be
slower to deliver housing than others. The latest statement covering the five year
period commencing next April (2014) concludes that through a combination of sites
with planning permission, sites that are under construction, and those that are likely
to provide dwellings over the next five years, the District can provide approximately
2,319 dwellings which equates to 4.68 years supply inclusive of a 20% buffer.
Table 1 – Five Year Land Supply Requirement and Supply.
TOTAL 5 YEAR SUPPLY
TOTAL EXPECTED FROM
ALL SOURCES (large sites,
pending applications, other
potential
sources,
site
allocations and small sites)
REQUIRED
FIVE
YEAR
SUPPLY
INCLUDING
5%
BUFFER
NUMBER OF YEARS SUPPLY
2,319
Total number of dwellings expected to be
built within the next 5 years from all sources.
2,475
Total number of dwellings required in the
next 5 years including 20% buffer
4.68
Supply divided by the annual average
requirement (495).
5. LAND SUPPLY AND TRAJECTORY
At 31st March 2013 there were a total of 1,584 dwellings in the District which had
planning permission that were not yet built. Of these 1,435 had a full or reserved
matters planning approval. The remaining 149 only had outline planning permission
and consequently development is unable to commence until such time as reserved
matters approval is granted. This supply comprises all sources of new dwellings with
planning permission and includes new build, sub divisions, and rural building
conversions. The permitted supply figure can vary widely both within a year and
between years and is influenced by both new permissions granted and dwellings
completed. Over the last decade there has typically been between 800 and 1,200
dwellings with planning permission where development has not been completed or
started.
Of the 1,435 dwellings with full planning permission which could be built some 442
(30%) are recorded as commencements, that is, sufficient works have taken place on
the site to constitute a legal start of the development. They are on a mixture of sites
(262 different sites) where development can either be described as continuous
(Cromer - Railway Triangle), intermittent, or dormant. Approximately 33% of the
recorded commencements started more than five years ago, and 10% of the total
more than 10 years ago.
Of the 1,435 dwellings which could be built some 993 homes (69%) on 218 different
sites have not yet started.
Around half of the permitted supply is on small sites with consent for less than 10
dwellings.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
12
24 June 2013
6. ACTIONS/REVIEW
Given the current situation the position in relation to land supply will need to be kept
under regular review. Although there is a deficiency in the five year supply, this is
relatively modest. There remains a large supply of sites with planning permission
which in the event of an upturn in the housing market could, at least theoretically,
deliver the annual average dwelling requirement for the next few years. Furthermore,
the Council is in a strong position in terms of allocated sites, a significant proportion
of which are anticipated to secure planning permissions over the next 12-18 months.
The single greatest impact on delivery figures is the slowdown in the housing market,
which both nationally and locally has seen a 40-50% reduction in completion rates,
and until this recovers it should be expected that development rates will be below
both historical rates and required averages.
Given this, the Council will need to carefully consider any planning applications which
do not comprise part of the existing housing land supply, including those where the
grant of planning permission would represent a departure from adopted policies and
consider carefully the deliverability of such proposals. Any proposals should continue
to be considered on their individual merits having regard to the land supply situation
at the time of application and other material considerations.
Additionally, the Council will need to carefully consider its position on the possible
introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy in relation to impacts on
development viability (item X) and may wish to consider the introduction of targeted
measures to incentivise the commencement and delivery of development (Item Y)
Recommendation to Cabinet
That the Annual Monitoring Reports and Statements of five year Land Supply
covering the period 2010/13 are published.
(Source: Mark Ashwell, Planning Policy Manager ext. 6325)
Background documents
Annual Monitoring Report 2010/12
Annual Monitoring Report 2012/13
Statement of Five Year Land Supply 2013
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
5.
COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY
This report provides an update in relation to the potential introduction of the
Community Infrastructure Levy in the District and seeks a decision on whether to
proceed to consultation.
1.
Introduction
It is an established part of the planning system that those who secure planning
permission for the development of land should contribute towards meeting the need
for new or improved infrastructure which is required in connection with their
development. Local Authorities are able to secure such contributions either through
the direct provision of infrastructure by the developer or the payment of monies to
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
13
24 June 2013
deliver that infrastructure. Typically these contributions are made in relation to larger
scale developments and might include both physical and social infrastructure such as
affordable housing, local road improvements, provision for public open space and its
on-going maintenance, funding for additional school places, library facilities and other
public services.
These contributions have mainly been secured through a process of legal
agreements under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 where
the Planning Authority agrees to the grant of planning permission subject to the prior
completion of a legally binding agreement to provide the required infrastructure.
Highway improvements can be secured through Section 106 Agreements but are
more often covered by separate agreements with the County Council under Section
278 of the Highways Act.
Adopted Core Strategy Policy (CT2) and site specific policies in the Allocations
Development Plan recognise that in many instances development will only be able to
proceed if local infrastructure, services and community facilities are improved. Policy
CT2 indicates that such improvements may be required in relation to development
proposals for 10 or more dwellings and larger commercial developments and that the
mechanism for making contributions (either as direct provision or through a financial
contribution) will be published in a Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning
Document (SPD). This SPD has not yet been produced, pending consideration of the
Community Infrastructure Levy, and contributions are currently negotiated in
accordance with agreed protocols and interim policy guidance on a case by case
basis.
In 2012 the Council resolved to investigate the merits of introducing the Community
Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in North Norfolk.
2.
What is CIL
The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a way for communities to benefit from
built development taking place in their area. The levy is a fixed rate charge, based on
square metres of net additional floor area payable by the owners of land that secures
planning permission. Different development types can be subject to different levy
rates, and these are set in a Charging Schedule. The landowner is liable to pay the
levy to the charging authority (North Norfolk District Council) once construction
commences or in accordance with a staged payments policy. The Council must then
use this money for infrastructure provision across the District, such as highways
improvements, open spaces or education provision. Part of the levy is given to local
Town and Parish Councils to spend on local infrastructure priorities.
Once a levy is set payment is mandatory and the Council cannot decide on an
individual case-by-case basis whether the charge should be levied, or what
contributions should be required. This means that when a developer applies for
planning permission, they will be able to calculate their financial liability up front, thus
removing uncertainties about costs.
The charge is levied on most types of developments of more than 100m 2 of floor
area or those creating 1 or more dwellings (even if the dwelling floor area is less than
100m2). Affordable housing and charitable developments are exempt from payment.
CIL is intended to be directly related to the delivery of the growth proposed in
Development Plans and would operate as a contribution towards, rather than a
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
14
24 June 2013
replacement of other infrastructure funding. The levy is intended to „unlock‟ the
growth that is proposed in Development Plans by raising funds that can be spent on
the infrastructure which is necessary to allow this growth to occur. Government
advice states that CIL contributions should not be set at a level that risks the delivery
of the Development Plan by making development unviable. Regulations have been
passed which allow, but do not require, a local authority to charge a CIL levy.
3.
Current Position
The Council has commissioned two evidence documents to inform the decision on
whether CIL should be introduced, firstly an Infrastructure Study to identifying the
total Infrastructure requirement arising from proposed growth in the area, likely
funding available, and the size of any funding gap, and secondly, a District wide
Development Viability Assessment to establish how the introduction of new tariffs
might impact on the financial viability of development. Both these studies are nearing
completion and the Council now needs to consider how to proceed.
4.
Summary Evidence
The Infrastructure Study concludes that there is a need for infrastructure investment
to support growth in the district. Unlike some other areas, however, there is no single
large scale infrastructure project which will be necessary to „unlock‟ growth. There are
bigger scale regionally significant projects, such as the NDR and rail improvements,
which although arguably beneficial to north Norfolk are not essential pre-requisites to
development in the district. Elsewhere in the district there are a range of physical and
social infrastructure improvements that are necessary, and a relatively small number
that are essential, if sustainable development is to be achieved, eg primary school
provision to support the expansion of Fakenham, enhanced public open space, or
upgrades to the local sewage treatment works. There is currently a funding gap, both
in relation to regional and local infrastructure and there is a strong case for developer
contributions towards filling this gap either through Section 106, CIL, or a combination
of both mechanisms.
The viability of development is very variable across the district. If CIL were to be
introduced it could only be justified in relation to residential, retail and some specialist
commercial developments such as hotels. Other types of development are not
sufficiently viable to allow for the introduction of CIL tariffs. However, based on
adopted planning policy requirements (particularly the 45% affordable housing target
and Code for Sustainable Homes requirements) residential viability is marginal across
some parts of the district, and it is only in the higher value areas of the district that
residential development shows sufficient viability to support the introduction of
meaningful tariffs. Elsewhere only modest tariffs could be supported and in some
areas any tariff is likely to put development at risk. This conclusion goes to the heart
of the question – would the introduction, or lack of, CIL tariffs threaten the delivery of
the adopted development strategy?
This requires consideration of a number of factors:
What is the development strategy for the district? What are the key constituent
parts of the strategy in relation to housing and jobs growth and matching
physical, social, economic and environmental infrastructure?
To what extent is the delivery of this strategy dependent upon infrastructure
provision?
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
15
24 June 2013
What mechanisms, and funding, are likely to be available to deliver this
infrastructure? What is the preferred overall approach to dealing with
developer obligations – fixed rate non-negotiable tariffs via CIL, negotiated
Section 106 obligations, or a combination of both?
What are the current market conditions? Will development viability allow for
tariffs to be collected without compromising delivery of development?
5.
What are the choices?
The key components of the development strategy for the district are housing growth
(8,000 dwellings), jobs growth (4,000 net additional jobs), provision of social and
physical infrastructure to support growth, and environmental protection.
There is no single large scale, or significant infrastructure requirements in the district
that must be addressed to deliver growth. That is not to say that there is no
requirement for infrastructure investment and that at a local level there is not a need
for infrastructure. However, growth in the District is not contingent on major
infrastructure projects as is the case elsewhere (eg Northern Distributor Road). There
is nevertheless a long list of locally significant infrastructure deficiencies which will
need to be addressed to deliver sustainable growth. Many of these are identified in
the adopted Core Strategy and the Council has sought to address these needs
through the Site Allocations Development Plan. For example, the mixed use
development sites in the larger towns are intended to address identified needs for
housing, jobs and address local deficiencies in public open space and other
community facilities. In large part these schemes will be developer funded through
the planning process and the Council may choose to secure infrastructure via the
Section 106 or the CIL mechanism. The relative merits of the two approaches are
outlined below.
Comparison of Section 106 and CIL.
Section 106
Community Infrastructure Levy
Payments are negotiable on a Payments are non-negotiable and fixed at a set
case by case basis but must level and are only waived in very exceptional
comply
with
legal
tests circumstances. Some developments are likely to
(necessary
to
make
the be unviable even with tariffs set at low levels.
development
proposal Lack of viability on a particular site is not in itself
acceptable, proportionate and a reason for granting exceptional circumstances
directly
related
to
the relief. Setting the tariff level is subject to viability
development proposed). This testing but this does not need to show that all
means that there is substantial sites are viable. The test applied is - would the
flexibility as the Council retains tariff prejudice the delivery of the development
the ability to waive contributions strategy as a whole rather than the viability of
on grounds of development specific sites.
viability on a case by case basis.
CIL payments have „first call‟ on the uplift in
value and if set at the wrong level (too high) are
likely to compromise the delivery of negotiated
106 contributions including affordable housing.
Section 106 contributions are CIL is payable on most development over a
rarely justified in relation to small defined size (100sqm of net floor space) and all
scale developments as it is new housing other than affordable dwellings.
difficult to demonstrate that legal Where no building works are proposed (eg.
tests are met but unlike CIL can change of use of land) no tariff is payable.
be secured even where no new
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
16
24 June 2013
floor space is proposed. Eg wind
farm developments or change of
use of land.
Monies collected must be spent
for the specific purposes for
which they were collected and
usually within a prescribed period
and with a payback clause. The
developer, the Council, and local
communities have the certainty
that the specific impacts of
development will be mitigated
locally.
The commissioning of works
required by 106 is primarily
undertaken directly by the
developer as part of the
development process.
The regulations do not allow the
pooling of contributions from
more
than
five
separate
developments to a single item of
infrastructure. This is only likely
to be an issue in relation to „big
ticket‟ items of infrastructure
where pooled contributions would
be necessary to secure sufficient
funding. For example, a new
school.
Can be used to secure Affordable
Housing contributions.
Monies collected can be spent on any
infrastructure and anywhere in the district, or in
some circumstances beyond the district, with the
Council accounting for this expenditure through
investment programmes, monitoring and regular
reporting.
A reasonable proportion (15-25%) of CIL is
passed directly to parish and town councils to be
spent as they wish on local infrastructure.
The Council may need to take on the role of
project commissioning and managing.
Contributions from multiple schemes can be
pooled together towards a single item of
infrastructure.
Cannot currently be used as a way of collecting
contributions for affordable housing.
The overriding consideration relates to the potential impacts of planning obligations,
whether secured via CIL or 106, on the viability and delivery of development.
CIL is both attractive and inherently risky. Because tariffs, once set, are none
negotiable they will almost inevitably impact on delivery of marginal schemes. Many
of the bigger sites have already been granted planning permission and most of the
others are likely secure permissions before CIL could be introduced and they will
consequently be exempt from payment.
Whilst potential tariff receipts might be low, particularly in the next few years as most
of the development that will be built is already consented, they could still yield a
reasonable infrastructure fund some of which could be targeted to local priorities
which have little prospect of being funded under the Section 106 process because
they are not sufficiently related to a specific development proposal. Furthermore 15%
of CIL would go to Parishes to fund local priorities and contribute towards the
localism agenda.
CIL is not essential in North Norfolk to facilitate sustainable growth. Most of the
Infrastructure which is required is relatively small scale and site specific, and subject
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
17
24 June 2013
to economic considerations there is a reasonable prospect that the Council can
deliver this infrastructure via the Section 106 process.
6.
Conclusions
The evidence indicates that infrastructure is required, that there is unlikely to be
sufficient funding available, and that a system which requires developer contributions
towards funding is justified. The growth which is planned in the district can be
delivered with or without CIL. Market conditions remain uncertain and delivery rates
of development are already below required targets. Many large scale proposals are
unable to deliver fully policy compliant development and remain commercially viable.
On balance it is considered that the introduction of CIL at this time represents a risk
to the development strategy and it is recommended that consideration of CIL should
be suspended and reconsidered at a future date when there are clearer signs of
economic recovery.
Recommendation
That the Working Party recommends to Cabinet that consideration of the
potential introduction of CIL is suspended.
(Source: Mark Ashwell, Planning Policy Manager ext. 6325)
Background documents
Draft Infrastructure Study
Draft District wide Viability Assessment
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
18
24 June 2013