Agenda item

The Panel will receive an update on the above.  The Consultant involved in production of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan will also be present at the meeting.

 

The Panel are requested to consider the report and make any appropriate recommendations to Cabinet.

Minutes:

Members received a presentation from the LDF Manager, Strategic Housing Officer and Principal Planner (as attached).  The Panels attention was drawn to the Cabinet Report and the recommendations to proceed with the work involved to bring forward the Strategic Growth Area.

 

The Panel welcomed James Brierley from Gerald Eve Consultants to the meeting.  James Brierley explained that he had been working on the Infrastructure Delivery Plan which was aimed to support the viable commercial aspects of the plan and took into consideration the National Planning Policy Framework and the Local Plan.  He explained that it also set out how development could be delivered and relevant timescales.  Members noted that it was an eighteen year plan and estimated costs had to be taken into consideration due to the extensive time period.

 

The Panel was informed that meetings had been held with key stakeholders and land owners to inform them of the proposals.

 

The Principal Planner provided the Panel with information on the Hopkins Homes Planning Application which had been submitted and would deliver development on a portion of the site.  It was explained that an outline application with reserved matters had been submitted and Hopkins Homes would be required to contribute towards infrastructure in terms of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

 

The LDF Manager drew attention to the recommendations as set out in the report which would allow officers to prepare the necessary Section 106 agreement and submit an outline planning application for the rest of the site, working with land owners.

 

The Chairman thanked officers and James Brierley for their presentation and invited questions and comments from the Panel, as summarised below.

 

Councillor Pope addressed the Panel under Standing Order 34.  He asked for detail on how much the borough council would be required to contribute financially.  The Chief Executive explained that the borough council had contributed to phase one which included the design of the road.  Norfolk County Council funding and business rate pool funding had also been used.  Another application had been submitted to the business rates pool for the next stage of the work, which would be match funded by the borough council.  Land owners would also be required to contribute and it was noted that Norfolk County Council owned some land in the area so would be asked to contribute in the same way as other land owners.  It could also be possible that the borough council would have to fund some work up front and then reclaim it from the developers once development had started and they had funds available.

 

The Chief Executive explained that this was a strategic site and development was important in order to achieve the five year land supply, therefore it was crucial that the borough council supported land owners and encouraged development to come forward on the site.

 

Councillor Pope referred to the eighteen year plan and commented that costs could increase by then.  The Chief Executive explained that the borough council would continue to look for funding opportunities to deliver infrastructure, and infrastructure would also be delivered via developer contributions and Section 106 agreements.  He reminded the Panel that the borough council would not be developing the site, this would be down to the land owners, but it may be possible that the council could look at acquiring some land if there was a commercial case for it in the future.

 

Councillor Pope referred to how the land values would be shared equally between the land owners.  He commented that different parcels of land had different values, for example if they were facing the road, or were ransom strips.  James Brierley explained that the value of land could vary if they were isolated developments, but if you looked comprehensively the land may only be valuable if it was developed along with the rest of the site.  He commented that equalisation agreements would be important and there may be some disputes, but disputed land could be bypassed, which would lower its value.  James Brierley explained that equalisation agreements made it fair to all land owners.  He also referred to Compulsory Purchase Order powers which could be used as a last resort if required.

 

Councillor Mrs Collingham commented that the report was lengthy and she required clarification on what the Panel was being required to consider.  Reference was made to the recommendations within the Cabinet report and that the Panel would be requested to make relevant recommendations to Cabinet.

 

In response to a question from the Chairman, Councillor Gidney, it was confirmed that an outline application with reserved matters Planning Application would be submitted for the rest of the site.  It was also confirmed that a project management team would be set up to oversee the project.  With regard to Section 106 agreements it was also confirmed that specialist advice would be sought as required as the agreements would be quite technical and it would be important that they secured all infrastructure required in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

 

The LDF Manager referred Members to the options set out within the report and the preferred recommended option for delivery.  He explained that the preferred option required a planning application for the whole of the site, so there may only be one section 106 agreement for the whole of the southern site, which would hopefully simplify the process.

 

Councillor Mrs Watson commented that a dedicated person would be required to liaise with Parishes and local residents to keep them informed on progress.  The LDF Manager explained that meetings had been held previously with Parish Councils and the Panel noted that the Infrastructure Delivery Plan was based on the Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plans.

 

The Chief Executive explained that it was essential to get communications right.  He explained that the council would produce a communications plan and keep local communities updated as appropriate.

 

Councillor Crofts asked if the development was included in the five year land supply.  The LDF Manager explained that they were, but not necessarily within the next five year period.  He explained that the plan for development was over eighteen years.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Smith, it was explained that the relief road was still in the design stage, so its precise location was not yet confirmed, but it would roughly go along the edge of the site.

 

The Portfolio Holder for Development, Councillor Blunt explained that the design phase was currently ongoing and was a big project.  He explained that the purpose of the Infrastructure Delivery plan was to enable the delivery of homes which was required in order to maintain the five year land supply.

 

The Chairman, Councillor Gidney, asked if the project was themed as it was in effect a blank canvas and development could be interesting.  The LDF Manager explained that the plan would give structure to overall development and was based on Neighbourhood Plans, so it would need to reflect the type of design that the local community had wanted in its plan.

 

The Chairman, Councillor Gidney asked if custom and self-build opportunities would be considered in the site and it was explained that there was nothing that would prohibit this and discussions would be held with developers and opportunities could be explored.  The Portfolio Holder for Development, Councillor Blunt commented that he hoped that there would be some custom and self-build opportunities on the site.

 

The Chairman, Councillor Gidney, referred to correspondence he had received from Councillor McGuinness relating to healthcare facilities.  The LDF Manager explained that the borough council could not determine where or when facilities would be developed but the Local Plan Task Group had met with local and regional health bodies to keep them updated on the proposals.

 

RESOLVED: That the Panel supported the recommendations to Cabinet as set out below:

 

1.     That the IDP document and the levels of cost outlined within it are used to prepare a suitable S106 agreement to accompany planning approvals for development sites on the Growth Area.

2.     Authority is delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader to agree the form of planning application and associated documents and submit them.

3.     Authority is delegated to the Chief Executive and Deputy Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader to sign off Option 3 if the Business Rates Pool bid is successful and review alternative funding options if necessary.

4.     Cabinet agrees that amendments to the Capital Programme are made.

5.     Authority is delegated to the Property Services Manager in consultation with the Leader and Portfolio Holder to acquire land within the growth area should the situation arise.

Supporting documents: