Issue - meetings

The item had been brought to the Committee at the request of the Chairman Councillor Gourlay. 

Councillor Joyce made reference to the discussion he had held with the LDF Manager and p54 of the report which set out the levels of houses which would be required.  He asked if the minimum level of 3500 was needed or if it was the 7 -7500 target required.

The LDF Manager explained that it was the 7-7500 figure, dependent on the sites which were considered as part of King’s Lynn.  The overall total of 16500 properties would be required for the total period of time, 9000 of which had already been completed.

Councillor Gourlay asked how the targets set out in the Plan had been decided upon, and who would live in the additional properties.  The LDF Manager explained that the figures had been derived from analysis from the Core Strategy, and from population increase forecasts.  There were also changes in family structures, with more homes needed to cope with the current population, with the current demand of 660-690 new units pa.

Under Standing Order 34, Councillor McGuinness asked why housing growth was not being built upwards as in Cambridge, rather than outwards.   The LDF Manager responded that there were different markets operating in the 2 geographical areas, and the properties were developed to match to needs of the population, the land values and the construction costs of the build type.  He undertook to provide Councillor McGuinness with some further information on the issue.

Councillor Joyce made reference to the point he raised at the Cabinet meeting on the consistency of advice received from other agencies when planning consents were sought on flood plains.  He commented on the fact that the Planning Inspector had raised the issue of flood risk but referred to the level of flood risk being shown by the Environment Agency for a site adjacent to the river as opposed to one further inland. He asked how confident the Council was in the advice received from them or the County Council.  The LDF Manager responded that the confidence was that neither bodies had raised strategic objections to the Plan.

The LDF Manager reminded Members that the area was growing and it was important to make use of the land, as being in a flood plain did not preclude development, but required a flood risk assessment  to be undertaken and if those mitigation measures were found to be acceptable by the Environment Agency it was possible to build.

Councillor Gourlay made reference to a presentation received some years before at a Panel meeting that the risk of King’s Lynn flooding was a 1 in 150 year episode.  Councillor Gidney commented that the latest Environment Agency flood breach modelling was awaited, but it was necessary to go with the advice of the experts.

Councillor Joyce made further reference to the point he had made in the Cabinet meeting on some schools being over subscribed,  The LDF Manager responded that there was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45

An addendum page was submitted which set out the proposed minor amendments picked up at the Joint Panels meeting and the amended map of West Winch proposals.

Councillor Spikings presented the report which explained that the Examination into the Site allocations plan was adjourned on 7 July and the Inspector outlined a number of issues to which he required responses. The report set out the broad issues raised and sought the endorsement of Cabinet for a number of changes to the submitted plan and related matters. The approach covered:

• Habitat Regulation issues

• Flood risk issues

• Flexibility and deliverability

The report commented that the approach and detailed changes provided a pragmatic response and displayed sufficient flexibility in response to the Inspector’s questions, and he had indicated he that the Borough Council’s approach seemed to be appropriate.  The Examination would resume on 30 September 2015, for the first day in the Committee Suite, then returning to Lynnsport thereafter.

Councillor Mrs Spikings in referring to the Habitat Mitigation Levy Panel proposed that the Panel should include 2 Members of the Borough Council, not the 1 proposed in the report.  This was agreed.  In referring to the Habitat Mitigation document, attention was drawn to the fact that it set out what was proposed and the location of sites where pressure was put on them, for example dog walking in sensitive bird nesting sites.

With regard to the Gravel Hill, West Winch site which was now proposed to be added to the Plan, it had been argued that removal of it originally from the Plan had rendered the overall development of the other areas unsound, therefore requiring its re-inclusion as the logical extension to the existing development proposals.  Inclusion of the site would aid the provision of the relief road. Those areas of flood risk within the site could be used for open space or addressed through planning requirements.  Councillor Mrs Spikings went on to say that West Winch Parish Council and a number of individuals were not happy with the proposal, but if approved today, the Inspector would take it as a modification, whereon members of the public would be consulted on it and those views expressed would be presented to the Inspector, who would give consideration to all points made on both sides.

The LDF Manager further explained that the Inspector had seen issues around habitat and had raised queries re flood risk and sought information on what the Council would do if it couldn’t get the level of housing required by 2026.  The report set out to explain where there was flexibility in delivery and how it would be covered. 

With regard to windfall sites the figures were set out in the report, and there was also evidence that sites were often more intensely developed than anticipated.  He also reminded Members that there was a commitment to begin reviewing the Plan at an early stage, ensuring a commitment to keep looking forward.

In referring to West Winch, he explained  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54