27 JULY 2015
Minutes of a meeting of the PLANNING POLICY & BUILT HERITAGE WORKING PARTY
held in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00 am when there
were present:
Councillors
Mrs A Arnold (Chairman)
R Reynolds (Vice-Chairman)
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
P High
J Punchard
Mrs V Uprichard
Officers
Mr M Ashwell – Planning Policy Manager
9.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs J English, Mrs P GroveJones and Mr N Pearce.
10.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 15 June 2015 were approved as a correct record
and signed by the Chairman.
11.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Working Party.
12.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No interests were declared.
13.
UPDATE ON MATTERS FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING
The Chairman reported that Councillor Dixon had requested a timetable in respect of
the public open spaces workstream.
The Planning Policy Manager stated that he was preparing options and would
provide a report on this issue to the next meeting.
Councillor P W High stated that he had spoken to the Parks Manager who intended
to bring a report to Cabinet later in the year.
14.
PLANNING POLICY UPDATES
The Planning Policy Manager presented a report which provided an update on the
Central Norfolk Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and explained how
such assessments were prepared and how they were used to inform housing targets
when preparing Local Plans.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
1
27 July 2015
The Planning Policy Manager stated that the Government required new Local Plans
to be in place by early 2017, otherwise the Government would step in and impose a
Plan, subject to public consultation. He stated that NNDC would aim to have a new
Plan in place by the end of 2017 and there was little likelihood of being placed in
“special measures”.
The Planning Policy Manager answered Members’ general questions:

CIL was the Government’s preferred way of collecting planning obligations. As
encouragement to opt for CIL, Councils were not allowed to collect contributions
for more than six infrastructure projects from each development, so NCC was
being more specific in its requirements. The Council could reopen discussions
regarding CIL if it wished. There could be more pressure to do so if
neighbourhood planning were to proceed to a greater extent than was currently
happening. However, whereas Section 106 money was specific to a place, CIL
money would be collected in a general fund and could be used elsewhere.
NNDC would be the collecting authority.

Growth from other areas was not accommodated in the current Plan. It was
possible that some areas would need to accommodate its growth elsewhere but
this was unlikely to be in North Norfolk. Currently, Norwich accommodated its
growth within the Norwich Policy Area, which included South Norfolk, and
Broadland. If the target were to rise, it was conceivable that commuter towns
around Norwich, including North Walsham, could take on some of the growth. It
was not certain that North Norfolk would need large scale growth. These
questions would be answered under the Duty to Co-operate.

There was no evidence which informed the patterns of distribution at this stage
And it was important that any proposals and policies were evidence based.

Councillor R Reynolds expressed concern regarding the impact of growth on
living and working conditions and tourism in the west of the District.

Kings Lynn was part of the Duty to Co-operate Forum but not part of the SHMA.
The Forum would look at the SHMAs and consider complimentary areas and
competing demands coming from the evidence.

Councillor J Punchard expressed concern with regard to the possible need to
accommodate a large migrant population from the Kings Lynn area .

The Chairman stated that it was not clear whether or not airfields would be
classified as brownfield sites.

Natural England was responsible for classifying AONBs. They could be lobbied
to make changes to the boundary but it was a complex process. There were two
principles in policy; sites within the AONB and sites in the setting of the AONB.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that Natural England recognised that development
outside the AONB could still have an effect on it.

Planning was moving towards Landscape Character Assessments and
considered the individual character of places rather than their designations.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
2
27 July 2015

It was not yet clear as to whether the Government’s proposals for brownfield land
related to vacant land or if it included occupied land. Detailed applications would
still come to the Authority but it would not be able to argue that the principle of
development was wrong. It may not be possible to seek planning obligations for
such development, but it was hoped that this issue could be resolved. NNDC
would be responsible for maintaining the register of brownfield land. The
capacity of brownfield land would be known prior to allocation of sites so it could
be taken into account. The Planning Policy Manager explained the calculations
that would be used to inform the allocations process. It was unlikely that
overprovision of dwellings would occur.

There was sufficient employment land in the District for 40 years. Some of it may
be recycled into housing land to take the pressure off greenfield sites. However it
would be unfortunate if landowners required businesses to leave in order to
develop land for housing.

There had been no consultation by the Government regarding the brownfield
proposals. The Chairman suggested that a letter be sent to the Minister of State
for Housing and Planning to express the concerns which had been raised.
The Chairman referred to an email which had been received from Councillor D
Young regarding affordable housing.
The Planning Policy Manager stated that Councillor Young had asked not to pursue
the matter at this stage. He had asked whether it was possible to deliver a larger
exceptions scheme than the policy allowed if communities requested it. The
Planning Policy Manager stated that he would reflect on this issue when drafting the
new policy.
Councillor J Punchard expressed concern at the impact on other settlements if large
exception schemes were allowed to go ahead.
He stated that Sculthorpe was
considering a very large scheme which could have an impact on northern Fakenham.
The Planning Policy Manager stated that Sculthorpe would be a departure from
policy.
The Planning Policy Manager stated that Members would be invited to three launch
events. He would be happy to arrange a broader Member event if required. He
would give consideration as to how Members could be involved.
The Working Party noted the report.
15.
STRATEGIC HOUSING MARKET ASSESSMENT (SHMA) UPDATE
The Planning Policy Manager presented a report which provided an update on the
Central Norfolk Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and explained how
such assessments were prepared and how they were used to inform housing targets
when preparing Local Plans. The report explained how such Assessments were
undertaken and the results of the assessment would be discussed at a later meeting.
All Members would be invited to attend a presentation by the consultants on 30
September.
The Planning Policy Manager answered Members’ questions. There was some
concern regarding the figure for second homes, which at 13% was considerably
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
3
27 July 2015
higher than the national average of 3% - 5%. Further analysis of this figure was
required. Holiday accommodation, such as chalets, which had never been part of
the housing stock, should not be included in the figure. Seasonal workers needs
would form part of the evidence.
The Working Party noted the report.
The meeting closed at 11.45 am.
_______________________
CHAIRMAN
17 August 2015
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
4
27 July 2015