27 JUNE 2011
Minutes of a meeting of the PLANNING POLICY & BUILT HERITAGE WORKING PARTY held in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
K E Johnson (Chairman)
M J M Baker Ms V R Gay
P W High - Holt Ward
B Smith - Mundesley Ward
D Young
Officers
Mr S Blatch - Strategic Director (Community)
Mr M Ashwell - Planning Policy and Property Information Manager
Mr P Godwin - Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
Mr J Williams - Team Leader (Major Developments)
Mr P Rhymes - Conservation and Design Officer
(1) CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENT
The Chairman thanked Members of the former Local Development Framework
Working Party for their work.
(2) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Mrs B McGoun.
(3) APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIRMAN
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor M J M
Baker and
RESOLVED
That Councillor Mrs S A Arnold be appointed Vice-Chairman of the
Working Party for the ensuing year.
(4) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which he wished to bring before the Working Party.
(5) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor M J M Baker declared that he owned a listed building.
1.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party 1 27 June 2011

2.
(6) LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK PROGRESS REPORT
The Working Party noted item 1 of the officers’ reports which provided a general update in relation to the Local Development Framework and related policy documents.
(7) NORTH NORFOLK LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK – SITE
ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT - PREPARATION OF
DEVELOPMENT BRIEFS
The Working Party considered item 2 of the officers’ reports which outlined the need to prepare development briefs in relation to a number of Local Development
Framework site allocations, explained the process and sought to agree priorities for preparation.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold expressed concern at the condition of the site of the former public toilets on Louden Road, Cromer. The Strategic Director stated that this site did not form part of the ROS 3 allocation and would not therefore be subject to a
Development Brief.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager suggested that Section 215 powers could be used to tidy the site.
Councillor G R Jones asked if localism and other forms of public engagement were likely to cause any difficulties in respect of consultation on development briefs.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) stated that localism was in its early days and it was difficult to predict how it would work. However, the sites had already been through the statutory planning process under the LDF. They were allocated sites and it would be difficult to back-track on them.
Councillor M J M Baker asked how some allocated sites qualified for preparation of a development brief and others did not.
The Planning Policy and Property Information Manager explained that the Major
Developments Team did not have the capacity to produce development briefs for all the allocated sites. Development briefs were required for complicated and large sites, where there was likely to be phased development over a number of years, or where multiple developers were involved and where there was a need to establish an overall vision and set of principles that development should conform with. With some of the Retail Opportunity Sites there was an issue over design and it was desirable to establish the principle of development. The Team was looking at producing Design
Concept Statements for all allocated sites which would be of assistance when giving pre-application advice but these would not have the same status as formal
Development Briefs.
Councillor Baker asked why it had not been considered necessary to produce a brief for H01, as this was a very sensitive site as far as local residents were concerned.
He did not wish to see typical box-like estate development on the site.
The Planning Policy and Property Information Manager explained that Members had control over the determination of any planning application for the site. He questioned the benefits of a Development Brief for this site as there were only two points of access and the site was allocated solely for housing. He considered that all the brief could specify would be ‘high quality development’ which was already a requirement of adopted policies.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party 2 27 June 2011

Councillor N D Dixon referred to localism, neighbourhood plans and other community engagement. He considered that there was a need to manage expectations of Town and Parish Councils so that they did not think that discussions could be reopened over decisions that had already been made, and to identify areas where they would be able to influence what would happen on allocated sites. He considered that the
Authority should be proactive and take a lead on this issue.
The Strategic Director stated that where Local Planning Authorities had adopted Core
Strategies and Site Allocations, the Localism Bill would not provide the ability for communities to revisit earlier decisions around these allocations. The challenge for the Authority was in making decisions on how local communities could be involved in contributing to how proposals would be delivered and around the New Homes Bonus and the amount which would be passed on for spending in the locality. He considered that the debate around Localism was likely to be in terms of whether further consultation was needed on delivery of proposals, any planning obligations such as provision of open space, and means of delivering affordable housing. At present “localism” meant many things to many people. It was not about revisiting allocations, but making them live, real and respecting places in which they sat.
Councillor G R Jones expressed his disappointment with the LDF with regard to development in villages. He had been approached by residents who wanted to know how they could build dwellings in their gardens for their children to help them as they grew older. He asked if it was possible to put forward a proposal for a site which was outside the plan.
The Planning Policy and Property Information Manager stated that development briefs would not be templates which would dictate the minor details, but if a good proposal was put forward which did not comply with the plan Officers could advise departing from it. Development briefs were not policy documents, but it would be necessary to give reasons for departing from them.
Councillor P W High requested a further period of public consultation on H01 prior to an application coming forward given the public concern. Councillor Baker supported this request.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) stated that potential developers representing the landowners had undertaken pre-application consultation, which had attracted a great deal of public interest. The purpose of this exercise was to seek views on the developers’ initial ideas and consider any changes they wished to make as a result. He understood that many people were unhappy with this allocation but it was the Inspector’s decision to include it. The developers had requested a meeting with Officers. The next stage would be the submission of a planning application upon which statutory consultation would take place.
Tin considering Councillor High’s request, the Strategic Director asked what outcome
Councillors High and Baker would be seeking in respect of further consultation, as otherwise the Council might be at some risk given the allocation of the site through the SSP process.
Councillor Baker stated that there were a number of issues, in particular, the provision of a roundabout at the Kelling Road/Old Cromer Road junction. The majority of traffic from the site would use this junction.
3.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party 3 27 June 2011

4.
The Strategic Director suggested that the local Members, Chairman of the Working
Party and County Councillor discuss the matter with Officers of the Highway
Authority. If the outcome of those discussions was successful then the local
Members could take the matter back to their community, otherwise further negotiations could take place.
Councillor High stated that there was an expectation within the community that there would be further consultation. He suggested that half a day would be helpful to reassure the community that the Council was doing its best to resolve the issues.
The Strategic Director suggested that an exhibition to explain how the current situation was arrived at would probably be more beneficial than further consultation.
The Chairman requested that the local Members discuss the way forward with the
Strategic Director and Team Leader (Major Developments).
The Planning Policy and Property Information Manager suggested that it would be beneficial for Members to look at large sites outside the District as a ‘lessons learned’ exercise, given than the Council had not dealt with sites of the size and complexity of some of the allocations for many years. Councillor N D Dixon requested a balance of good sites and those where there were major lessons to be learned.
RESOLVED
1. That the requirements to prepare development briefs be noted and that priority be given to undertaking this work for the large scale mixed use allocations at Fakenham, North Walsham and Holt.
2. That a tour of large sites outside the District be arranged to inform
Members in consideration of future Development Briefs on large allocated sites.
3. That discussions take place between Councillors M J M Baker and P W
High and the Strategic Director and Team Leader (Major Developments) as to the way forward in respect of site H01.
(8) NORTH NORFOLK LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK – PLANNING
OBLIGATIONS AND THE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY
The Working Party considered item 3 of the officers’ reports which outlined the process of securing infrastructure and facilities through the Development
Management process using Section 106 legal agreements and potentially the
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).
At the request of Councillor Ms V R Gay, the Planning Policy and Property
Information Manager outlined his response to concerns raised by Councillor Mrs B
McGoun with regard to CIL. Councillor Mrs McGoun had raised concerns regarding development viability, cost to the Authority to administer the system and frontloading. CIL recommendations suggested that charging authorities could possibly retain 5% of the income for administration cost. He was unsure as to how this would work as there were significant up-front costs, including monitoring and transferring money. There would be significant resource issues for the Authority and he was unsure if 5% would be sufficient to cover the costs of administering the system.
There was a need for greater understanding about development viability.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party 4 27 June 2011

Councillor M J M Baker expressed his strong opposition to CIL and the cost of administration. He considered that the Council should fight as hard as it could against CIL.
Councillor G R Jones considered it was only right that developers should contribute as essential infrastructure was necessary alongside development. He requested clarification as to the developments that would be subject to the levy.
The Planning Policy and Property Information Manager explained that the burden of funding for infrastructure currently fell disproportionately on large developments.
However, CIL would be spread more widely across the sector, with all developments of over 100m
2
floor space being subject to the levy. The burden would be spread much thinner and it may make some developments more viable.
Councillor Jones referred to the limited contribution received from Section 106
Obligations and understood the need to maximise any opportunities to collect CIL.
He requested that a report be submitted to Overview and Scrutiny Committee at an early stage to enable a wider view to be taken.
Councillor N D Dixon referred to the major infrastructure problems that had been identified when considering the LDF, including utilities. He stated that this was a huge piece of work for the Authority to undertake. He considered that utility providers should be involved in the work and a judgement needed to be made as to what was feasible.
The Strategic Director acknowledged the concerns raised by Members. He stated that the Authority was not rushing to introduce CIL, but was looking at what other authorities were doing. He stated that the Greater Norwich Development Partnership was already working on it and was to consult on their proposals and draft charging schedule in the Autumn. It was necessary to consider CIL and come to an informed opinion as whether it was right for North Norfolk and right for developers in the
District.
Councillor Dixon stated that there was a need to be clear as to what the Authority wished to achieve.
It was proposed by Councillor G R Jones, seconded by Councillor Ms V R Gay and
RESOLVED unanimously
That a report be produced for consideration by Overview and Scrutiny
Committee in advance of submission to Cabinet.
(9) CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISALS AND MANAGEMENT PLANS –
PROGRAMME UPDATE
The Working Party considered item 4 of the officers’ reports which provided an update on the progress achieved so far in respect of the preparation of Conservation
Area Appraisals and Management Plans for the District. It also outlined the current programme.
Councillor N D Dixon expressed concern that an opportunity had been missed to work with Broadland Council and the Broads Authority on a holistic approach to
Hoveton and Wroxham. He stated that those authorities had done a great deal of work to identify Conservation Areas on the Wroxham side of the river.
5.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party 5 27 June 2011

6.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that he had approached the Broads Authority on this matter but had heard nothing further. He stated that he was keen to co-operate with neighbouring authorities and had done so in respect of the Broads Authority with the Neatishead Conservation Area and Broadland District
Council with the RAF Coltishall Conservation Area designation..
Councillor N D Dixon considered that there was an important principle with regard to joint working and there were too many examples of where the boundary intervened.
He considered that there was no better example as to how the boundary affected
Hoveton and Wroxham and the tourist industry in the villages.
The Chairman asked the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager to investigate this matter.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold considered that there were many places where inappropriate shop fronts blighted the landscape. She asked what powers the
Authority had to deal with this issue.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that the development management should be used to ensure quality shop front design. The Council also had enforcement powers to deal with breaches of planning control. He stated that a great deal of work was done in the office to negotiate good design. He suggested that a grant scheme for shop fronts may help to encourage good design, although current budgetary constraints would preclude its establishment in the shorter term.
The issue of good shop front design was detailed in the adopted North Norfolk
Design Guide.
Councillor Mrs Arnold disagreed with the statement re grant support, and considered that it was the responsibility of business owners to ensure that their shop fronts were in keeping with the area. She considered that there should be stringent rules to prevent inappropriate shop front development.
Councillor Ms V R Gay stated that the Council previously had an advocate for built heritage at national level. This was an unpaid role. She requested the Working
Party to recommend that the Council considers making an appointment to this role.
She proposed the Officer’s recommendation.
Councillor G R Jones seconded the proposal. He also supported Councillor Mrs
Arnold’s view and stated that North Walsham had been devastated by poor shop fronts. He asked what the timescale was for carrying out the work on Conservation
Area Appraisals and Management plans; to what extent Village Plans were used; and why Walsingham was not being considered at this stage.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager explained that Walsingham was currently under review with field work being completed. Little Walsingham was very important in terms of its heritage. However, he considered that it was necessary to concentrate on areas where major development was proposed and in areas which were most at risk of losing their character.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that the review of
Conservation Areas was a continuous, cyclical process required by legislation. He considered that the focus should be on those Conservation Areas of the greatest merit, but that this work had to be considered in conjunction with other corporate priorities of the Council. It was necessary to look at towns and villages which were
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party 6 27 June 2011

most under pressure. Consequently it was considered best to focus on achieving full adoption of the Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plans for the towns of Cromer, Fakenham, Sheringham and Wells-next-the-Sea. In terms of timescale, it would take several years to review all Conservation Areas.
The Strategic Director stated that the Conservation, Design and Landscape Team was a small team and there were other pressures in terms of contribution to the planning process which were of higher priority than this work, such as support for the
Major Developments Team, and it was not possible to progress all work streams as quickly as was desirable. He stated that the next stage of public consultation was resource intensive and the timetable could slip. He added that the work was funded directly by local Council taxpayers as there was no other income stream for this element of the team’s work.
Councillor G R Jones suggested that if the work were to take many years, the
Government should be lobbied for additional funding.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager explained that Village Plans were a useful resource and were taken into account. However, these covered all issues, whereas the Conservation Area work considered only the buildings and the setting and general architectural character of places. The work involved significant engagement with the local community and as such very much met the ‘localism agenda’..
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that the Council had to be realistic over what could be achieved given the constraints. He expressed appreciation of the importance which the Working Party had placed upon the work.
He stated that the proposals informed other processes, e.g. planning applications and design briefs.
Councillor M J M Baker disagreed with Councillor Ms Gay’s suggestion with regard to an advocate for built heritage. He also suggested that a scheme for shop fronts could be produced to guide the owners of premises when they repainted, and referred to a scheme that had been operated in Holt in the past. In response to the need for an advocate for the historic environment the Chairman remarked that former
Councillor Hilary Nelson had made a major contribution.
The Strategic Director stated that the Design Guide contained guidance on shop fronts and fascias. He suggested that if Members had any issues in this respect they should contact the Conservation, Design and Landscape Team.
RECOMMENDED to Cabinet
1. To note the progress achieved to date in respect of the preparation of
Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans.
2. To agree the programme identified for the delivery of adopted
Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans in the 2011-12 financial year (Cromer, Fakenham, Sheringham and Wells-next-the-Sea).
3. That further reports on the progress with the programme are brought before the Working Party and Cabinet as appropriate.
4. To consider appointing an advocate for Built Heritage to represent the
Council at national level.
7.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party 7 27 June 2011

8.
(10) FAKENHAM CONSERVATION AREA: ADOPTION OF CHARACTER APPRAISAL
AND MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS
The Working Party considered item 5 of the officers’ reports which proposed a recommendation to Cabinet that the Fakenham Conservation Area Character
Appraisal and Management Proposals be adopted for statutory planning purposes and as such become a material consideration in the planning process.
Councillor G R Jones thanked the Conservation and Design Officer for an excellent presentation.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold expressed concern with regard to control of permitted development, but noted that a further report would be submitted regarding Article 4
Directions.
Councillor M J M Baker expressed concern that only 15 people had attended the exhibition. He considered that there was no justification for spending tax payers’ money when so few people attended.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that whilst only 15 people had attended the exhibition, they had given very valuable feedback.
Councillor Ms V R Gay proposed the Officer’s recommendation. She referred to the positive response from the public to the proposals for North Walsham and the desire of local residents for greater controls to preserve the town.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that a positive response had been received from all the settlements that had gone through the process so far.
Clearly the historic built environment was very important to the people of North
Norfolk.
Councillor G R Jones seconded the proposal.
RECOMMENDED to Cabinet
1. To adopt the Fakenham Conservation Area Character Appraisal and
Management Plan for statutory planning purposes and as such be a material consideration in the planning process.
2. To adopt the proposed boundary changes as recommended in the draft
Appraisal document and that they be publicised in accordance with the
Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
3. To endorse the preparation of a programme of enhancement and improvement schemes for the Conservation Area and that appropriate budgetary provision be sought and that an accompanying management regime be formulated.
4. To endorse the preparation of a further report relating to the introduction of Article 4 Directions as necessary.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party 8 27 June 2011

(11) RUSSELL TERRACE MUNDESLEY ARTICLE 4(1) AND 4(2) DIRECTION
The Working Party considered item 6 of the officers’ reports which proposed a recommendation to Cabinet of the Confirmation of Direction under Article 4(1) and
4(2) of The Town and Country Planning Act General Permitted Development Order
1995 at Nos 1-23 Russell Terrace, Mundesley.
The Working Party thanked the Conservation and Design Officer for an excellent presentation.
The Conservation and Design Officer reported that solar panels had been omitted from the original Direction and recommended that the Working Party recommend
Cabinet to authorise the re-serving of the Direction to include solar panels on the south elevation of Russell Terrace and for the Direction to be confirmed providing there are no objections received following the statutory 28-day public consultation period.
Councillor B Smith, the local Member, stated that the public exhibition was well attended. He was very pleased in general terms, however he considered that the proposal to include solar panels in the Direction might be controversial when there was a desire to conserve energy. He referred to the proliferation of satellite dishes on one of the dwellings which had been converted to three flats.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that the Council would not be able to require the removal of the existing satellite dishes, but the Direction would enable any future proposals for replacement dishes to be controlled. He confirmed that no aspects of an Article 4 Direction were retrospective.
Councillor M J M Baker requested that the financial penalties for failing to comply with the Direction should be made explicit when householders were informed of the
Direction.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold considered that the notification letter should be nonaggressive and suggested that a notice be enclosed with the letter which could be kept with the deeds of the property rather than incorporate penalties etc in the letter.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, seconded by Councillor N D Dixon and
RECOMMENDED to Cabinet
1. That the Direction under Articles 4(1) and 4(2) of the Town and Country
Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 at Nos 1-23
Russell Terrace, Mundesley be re-served to include solar panels on the south elevation of Russell Terrace and for the Direction to be confirmed providing there are no objections received following the statutory 28day public consultation period.
2. That the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government be notified of the Council’s intention to serve an Article (4(1) and 4(2)
Direction.
The meeting closed at 12.30 pm.
9.
CHAIRMAN
12 September 2011
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party 9 27 June 2011