Agenda item

Minutes:

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 that they needed to look at the sites which had been taken out  or not put in, and their relationship to the larger site to ensure a viable/deliverable comprehensive area, which had all been subject to a re examination of the sustainability appraisal.  He re-iterated that the proposal would have to be subject to public consultation for presentation to the Inspector.

 

Under Standing Order 34, Councillor B Anota addressed the Cabinet on the West Winch changes to the plan as follows:

 

He drew attention to the level of feelings of distrust and anger in West Winch with the new proposals for the Gravel Hill Site, particularly with the traffic and flood risk on the site.  He drew attention to the fact that there were only 2 access points onto the site, both of which were from the A10, which residents felt that it was already a very busy road.  The comments he had received recommended that the Constitution Hill side of the village was a preferred option and the Gravel Hill side should be reconsidered.

 

Under Standing Order 34 Councillor P Gidney addressed the Cabinet on the West Winch changes to the Plan as follows:

 

He commented that he understood the difficulty  that the Inspector had placed the Borough in, but he felt it was important that if there were mistakes made in this process,  they would be around for a very long time, as would the West Winch and North Runcton Neighbourhood Plan which in its development whilst working on the Neighbourhood Plan with the LDF Team the site had originally been taken out.  He felt it was unfair to now include it, and that other service centres and villages should be looked at in order to increase the numbers overall, as some could take higher numbers, and if they had an existing transport system in place with bus routes they would be at no disadvantage, and would often help more local businesses by being developed by smaller builders, so keeping the money in the local area.

 

Councillor Gidney considered that what was proposed in their Neighbourhood Plan was right for the community, which felt that they had already been allocated a lot of the development, whilst the transport links were not sufficient.  He asked if the higher density being referred to had been reassessed.

 

In summing up he requested that other communities be re assessed and added to, as it was important to get the decision right now because the impact of the decision would be in place for a long time.

 

Under Standing Order 34 Councillor C Joyce addressed the Cabinet as follows:

 

In referring to the statistics set out in the report Councillor Joyce stated he was unable to tally the statistics relating to numbers of houses required given to him elsewhere and those in the report.

 

He commented that the IDBs did a good job on the wider issue of flood risk, the Environment Agency and the County Council also took a lead on the issue.  He asked why, when the Council was looking for advice on the issue it was not forthcoming at an early enough stage, but waited until applications were submitted.  He also commented that he hoped the advice received was consistent, because often when personnel changed, so did the advice.  He felt that the Council should put pressure on those agencies to give early advice on sites where there would be a problem.

 

Councillor Joyce also referred to the fact that the number of homes being brought forward generated traffic, and those people required services such as secondary schools, whereas in King’s Lynn there was no developer contribution to them, but the existing schools were oversubscribed in year 7.  He considered that the County Council were not asking for contributions from developers for those schools, and he hoped the introduction of CIL would alleviate this.  He also commented that he was glad of the early review of the Plan as villages needed the services such as schools.

 

In summing up he stated that a new review would help defend village schools and local communities and that he considered the big issue was to get consistent advice as early as possible.

 

Under Standing Order 34 Councillor K Mellish addressed the Cabinet on the report and asked whether the £50 per household habitat mitigation fee could be increased if a site was particularly sensitive.  She further asked  whether the reference to an early review in 2016 should be given a specific timeframe and drew attention to the comments made at the Panels meeting and if the recommendation giving delegated authority included proof reading the document prior to it being submitted to the Inspector.  She also asked if Cabinet was confident with the officer’s report.

 

The LDF Manager responded to the points raised as follows:

 

With regard to Councillor Gidney’s questions, he confirmed that design was part of the process, and the Plan set out strategic design parameters with design principles embedded in it which were stimulated by the Prince’s Trust  for the Built Environment.  With regard to the impact assessment, a sustainability assessment had been carried out for the wider site.

 

Councillor Beales asked if the over arching Policy would be subject to Planning Policy on the ground.  It was confirmed that with regard to the Neighbourhood Plan the role was important and a lot of local detail was put into it to make sure it enabled local community influence.

 

With regard to Councillor Anota’s points about the flood risk, he confirmed that site specific flood risk assessments would have to be made for applications, and those sites at risk would potentially be used in different ways.  With regard to the issue of surface water which could potentially affect other parts of the village, the developer would have to work up a solution to it.  He reminded Members that there had been a surface water strategy for that area, so there was good knowledge embedded in that.

 

In referring to Councillor Joyce’s points, the LDF Manager made reference to the discussion he had held with him on the King’s Lynn area figures, and the overall housing calculations for sites plan.  The report detailed what completions existed and the figures for the site allocation plan.  He referred to the table where the figures were set up amounting to 16,500.

 

He stated that the drainage issues would be looked at in West Winch and had been considered as part of the Neighbourhood Plan.

 

With reference to the issue of schooling allocations, it was pointed out that it was necessary to take advice from the County Council with regard to projected figures for schooling, and the advice received from them formed part of the Plan.  The same applied to the Health Service projections.  Work was also being carried out with the CCG on better understanding the provision of doctors in the Health Service.

 

Councillor Beales drew attention to the fact that some schools were over subscribed, but also some others were under subscribed.

 

In answering the questions from Councillor Mellish, he explained that there would be a suite of measures available for addressing, avoiding and or mitigating problems on specific sensitive sites. This could include the provision of on site open spaces in developments to minimise the need to go to the sensitive areas to potentially walk a dog, and publicity to draw people’s attention to the need for care around specific areas.  Individual developers would also need to carry out assessments and provide mitigation measures.  With regard to the level of the fee, it was reported that it would be a blanket charge across all new developments in the Borough.  However, if once established it was found it was not enough it could be reconsidered by Council.  The figures charged elsewhere varied from £25-100.

 

Councillor Mrs Spikings reminded Members that a precise date couldn’t be put on the review timetable until this Plan had been completed.  She invited Members with any points to address on spelling errors in the report to contact either the LDF Team or Democratic Services.

 

Councillor Long pointed out that the sensitive areas already existed and had pressure on them, but some work had already been done in some areas to mitigate problems.  He reminded Members that the bodies who had brought forward the concern about  the levy were charities, rather than the formal bodies with responsibilities in that area because those bodies were already working on that.

 

Councillor Mrs Spikings explained that a further report on the mitigation measures for this would be submitted in May 2016.

 

Councillor Long also reminded Members that the lead Authority on Flood Risk was the County Council.  He commented that it was hard to mitigate for water run off, but the requirements of the plans and legislation would not be able to put right past wrongs such as brick weave and tarmac or riparian owners not looking after their drains.

 

With regard to the issue of schools, he responded that Norfolk County Council was not looking to close schools, but provide schools with a good educational offer which were attractive to parents.

 

With regard to the Gravel Hill, West Winch site, Councillor Beales commented that it was impossible for this to be looked at in isolation as the landowners had made it plain that it affected the viability of the overall site. He asked if the issue could be addressed by density of the development.  Councillor Mrs Spikings drew Members attention to 4.4 of the report  stating that there was potential on some allocations to produce more properties than originally identified.  She also reminded Members that the West Winch Neighbourhood Plan was not yet an adopted document.

 

Councillor Beales commented that he felt it was clear that the local community had said that they didn’t want dense development, so it was important not to close off all options, but the site paid for a lot of the infrastructure which was required for the area.  He drew attention to the table in the report on p521 setting out the density proposed which was 24 per hectare.  The original recommendations from the former Minister were 30 per hectare. He asked how those new figures had come about.  The LDF Manager explained that they had been put forward following practical examples which had been considered by the Planning Committee, looking at the constraints of the sites, congestions, roads etc.  He also confirmed that the figures given were when green space had been taken out of the equation.

 

Councillor Beales endorsed the issue of windfall applications despite the difference of opinion between planning inspectors on the issue.  He sought assurance that the figures quoted were robust and could be accommodated.  The LDF Manager drew attention to the fact that as values rose over time, further sites would become available, and it was expected that the numbers would be similar as in previous years.  The report had tried to explain to the Inspector that the figures were not part of the Local Plan calculation, but had demonstrated that they did come forward, as between 2001 – 14, 3,958 windfalls had been completed against a total of 8,093, which was an average of 49%.

 

Councillor Beales asked if there were any fall back sites instead of the West Winch proposal.  The LDF Manager responded that there was a limit to what could be changed across the Plan, but the next review would be a chance to change the strategy and objectives.

 

Councillor Beales stated he would support the recommendations but he had reservations that Gravel Hill be included as well as increasing density of housing on West Winch development sites and requested his comments be minuted.

 

RECOMMENDED:  1) That the content of the Inspector’s request for further information in respect of the SADMP Examination be noted.

 

2) That the content of the Mitigation and Monitoring Strategy be endorsed. In particular that:

a) a Habitat Mitigation Levy at a rate of £50 be introduced for new housing in the Borough

b) a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring / Green Infrastructure Coordinating Panel be established and chaired by a Cabinet member from the Borough Council, along with a further Council representative.

 

3) That the following actions in respect of a ‘fall back’ position be agreed to ensure a flexible and deliverable supply of new housing:

a) Endorses the use of housing resulting from windfall permissions to count as a source of flexibility bolstering delivery from allocated sites.

b) Notes the position that potentially more intensive use can be made of existing proposed allocations.

c) An early review of the Local Plan is proposed.

d) A site at West Winch be included in the Plan having had regard to the assessments presented with this report.

4) Note that the above decisions have been taken having had regard to the

effects outlined in the Strategic Environmental Assessment / Sustainability Appraisal updates for the policies and proposals as new / amended.

5) Request of the Inspector that the modifications as proposed and others

that may arise at the Examination hearings, be subject to public consultation once the initial hearing sessions have concluded.

6) Delegated authority be given to the Executive Director Environment and Planning, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Development, in the authority to make minor amendments to enable suitable documents to be presented to the Examination.

Supporting documents: