Agenda item

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 not the capacity in all schools, but they would include the increase in school places where required.

Councillor McGuinness commented that in the days of the PCT, they were consulted over the provision of healthcare for the future.  He asked if this was still taking place with the new CCG.  The LDF Manager confirmed that liaison and advice had taken place on the public health requirements to 2026.

Following a question on the issue of the 5 year land supply, the Executive Director, G Hall explained the situation which was not part of this report.  Councillor Gourlay asked if when the report and plan was adopted developers would be able to develop elsewhere than those sites in the Plan, to which the Executive Director explained that the adoption of the Plan didn’t mean that the Inspectorate considered there was a 5 year land supply, as in other areas their adopted Local Plan was only 2 months old and they were found not to have the 5 year supply.  The figures set out in the local Plan were not maximum figures and the onus was on the Council to find the sites for housing.

Councillor Joyce asked what the acreage was in King’s Lynn for people to potentially walk a dog, and whether that had been taken into account in the space required for the town.   The LDF Manager undertook to send him the acreage figure, and confirmed that the green infrastructure with the habitat requirements etc were being taken into account as part of the Cabinet report.

Councillor Blunt asked if the fact that the windfall developments were to be included in the numbers would this be attributed back to the parishes.  The LDF Manager reported that every completion was taken into account, and the Inspector had referred to flexibility in windfall sites, specific numbers for which wouldn’t be attributed to specific parishes.  Councillor Blunt asked why the parishes had not been informed of the potential levels previously as they could potentially be significant in some parishes, to which the LDF Manager responded that it was not how the Government had asked for the information to be brought forward.