The following table outlines some of the Inspectors key findings in relation to aspects
of the Plans and individual sites.
SITE SPECIFIC PROPOSALS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Issue/Site
Officer summary of Inspectors conclusions
Overall Plan
Is too much
development
proposed in the
AONB?
Compliance
with
dwelling
numbers
and
distribution
of
development
Is it necessary
to make so
many
Greenfield
allocations?
Impacts
Wildlife
on
Delivery
of
development.
CROMER
All Allocations
Fakenham
All Allocations
Alternative
sites
The Plan is both legally compliant and sound. It has been
prepared in full accordance with the regulatory requirements and
collectively the proposals are based on a comprehensive evidence
base, are adequately justified, and have a reasonable prospect of
being delivered. Nevertheless in addition to those changes
discussed during the hearings, one further amendment is required
prior to Plan adoption.
Much of the coastal part of the District is designated as AONB
including many of the settlements which are identified for growth in
the Core Strategy. Accommodating the scale of growth that is
required by the strategy will inevitably involve development in the
AONB. The evidence indicates that a wide range of sites have
been appraised. The proposals do not amount to major
development in the AONB and are therefore sound.
Collectively the Inspector is satisfied that the allocations will deliver
the quantum of development required by the Core Strategy and
that the distribution accords with the agreed spatial strategy for the
district. The slight shortfalls in dwelling numbers in Cromer and
Sheringham are justified by the environmental constraints which
apply to these settlements and are compensated for (in an
appropriate way) by a slight increase in allocations at Holt.
Variation in Core Strategy dwelling allocation numbers in the
villages are justified by specific site circumstances.
The Inspector is satisfied that there are few previously developed
sites that are likely to be available and where these comprise of
land allocated for employment purposes these should not be
released for housing development. Hence, he does not conclude
that employment sites at Catfield Industrial Estate(CAT09 –
Former Mushroom Farm) or Fakenham (Fakenham Industrial
Estate and land adjacent to Kinnertons) should be released for
housing.
Subject to the inclusion of mitigation measures (as required in the
proposed policies) the proposals will not result in unacceptable
impacts on wildlife including the sites of European importance.
The proposals are adequate to provide both 5 and 15 year land
supplies and the evidence suggests a reasonable prospect of
delivery.
All allocations are sound.
All allocations are sound.
Land at eastern end of Oxborough Lane (adj Kinnertons) and Land
on Fakenham Industrial Estate (Wymers Way): Representations
sought to introduce these sites in addition to, or as an alternative
to, the Council’s proposals. The Inspector reaches a general
conclusion that land which is allocated for employment
development, as these sites are, should not be released for
housing. Hence, these alternative proposals are not supported.
Holt
H9,12,21
–
Heath
Farm,
Hempstead
Road
H15
–
Greshams
Land
Sound
Unsound – The site is not well contained within the town, it scores
comparatively poorly in the SA process and there is a preferable
alternative elsewhere (Peacock Lane/Woodfield Road – H01). The
facilitating development benefits are not sufficiently material to
justify selection of the site given the better alternative. The
Inspector requires the site to be deleted and replaced with
H01.
CP10
– Sound. The Inspector agrees from the evidence that there is a
clear need for additional parking and on balance the identified site
Thornage
Road Car Park is suitable
Hoveton
HV03
– Sound
Stalham Road
North Walsham
All sites in North Walsham are considered to be sound and the
All Sites
Inspector requires no changes. The Inspector notes the potential
issues arising from the development of North Walsham Football
club and in particular the concerns of the Highway Authority but
does not consider that these issues are insuperable.
Sheringham
All sites in Sheringham are considered to be sound. Proposals
All sites
made by the site owner of Sheringham House to introduce the
possibility of higher dwelling numbers on site SH06, if the site
where to be developed for elderly persons dwellings, are rejected
in favour of considering this issue at planning application stage.
Stalham
All proposals are sound including the Councils proposed key
All sites
change for the provision of further employment land at Stepping
Stone Lane.
Wells
Both proposals (residential and Freeman Street Car Park) are
All sites
sound.
Villages
All allocations in the villages are sound including the proposals for
All sites
Roughton where there is an unresolved highway objection. The
Inspector concludes that this objection should be capable of
resolution. Alternative proposals for ROU02 (Allied Earth) are not
supported.
RE-USE OF RURAL BUILDINGS AS DWELLINGS
Overall
The North Norfolk Single Policy Review (Conversion and Re-Use
conclusion
of Rural Buildings as Dwellings) Development Plan Document
provides an appropriate basis for the planning of this matter in the
District up to 2021. The Council has sufficient evidence to support
the proposed policy and can show that it has a reasonable chance
of being successfully implemented.
No changes are needed to meet legal and statutory requirements.
Building types
The policy rightly limits the opportunity for building conversions to
the better quality buildings in the District by reference to their
structural condition, appearance, historical significance and impact
on the landscape. The policy is sufficiently flexible to allow for the
individual merits of buildings to be considered against clearly
defined criteria.
Building
It is right to include the building location as a qualifying criterion.
location
Much of the District is very rural and poorly served by day to day
facilities. An approach which allowed for the conversion of
buildings across the District would result in unsustainable patterns
of development and would not comply with approved policies of
the Core Strategy or national policy guidance. The identification of
settlements with facilities as a basis for determining appropriate
locations is sound and the identification of areas around these
communities (based on a 1km walk) where dwelling conversions
may be considered acceptable is justified.
Exceptions
in In the case of listed and other high quality buildings the desire to
relation
to retain buildings in viable use can justify a relaxation of controls
location.
over building location. In these circumstances it is right to consider
residential conversion where alternative uses have been
considered and are unlikely to secure the long term retention of
the building.
Affordable
In principle a contribution to affordable housing provision is a
Housing
reasonable requirement. The inclusion of a viability test is critical
contributions
to the application of the policy. Detailed guidance on this is
desirable and will be forthcoming in the proposed SPD on
Planning Obligations.