Agenda item

RECOMMENDED:  1) That the proposed modifications be agreed.

2)         That the modifications and supporting documents be made available for representations for a period of 6 weeks, and any comments received are passed to the Inspector.

Reason for Decision

To ensure that the Borough Council is presenting a plan to the Examination that can be found ‘sound’ by the Inspector.

The LDF Manager presented the report which explained that as part of the Examination process for the SADMP a set of proposed modifications had been identified. The main modifications were considered necessary to ensure that the SADMP was found to be ‘sound’ by the Inspector. The changes covered various aspects including: the way in which housing numbers were expressed; additional or changed allocations; new policies including plan review, King’s Lynn port, and clarifying existing policies. The proposed changes were supported by sustainability and habitats assessments. 

The Inspector had recently contacted the Council with his preliminary findings, without prejudicing himself, to confirm that the additions he was looking for tallied with those contained within the report. 

The LDF Manager confirmed that the process was that the Modifications, if agreed, would be advertised for six weeks, whereupon any comments would be submitted to the Inspector who would include them as part of the Examination.  He would then come to a conclusion and publish his final report, which was expected in July. 

By way of clarification the LDF Manager drew attention to a typo within the report at page 85 of the agenda, Policy DM 21. 2, whereby the first National crossed through should be reinstated, but the second National on the second line should be crossed through.

Councillor Long welcomed the changes to the Habitat Mitigation which the Inspector had requested which was protection of the natural environment.

Councillor Mrs Nockolds expressed concern about the term "at least xxx..." in section 1.5 of the report relating to housing numbers, because presumably if a neighbourhood plan had a recommendation of 300, and the figure was 500 in the report they wouldn't be considered.

The LDF Manager responded that a parish wouldn't be able to argue for less than the number quoted in the Local Plan.  He explained that Inspectors across the Country were working to Government Guidance to them, but they were also trying to reassure communities that when a planning application came forward there were a list of environmental considerations to take into account, as they were not looking for something which destroyed amenity.  There would be occasions where the figure may be for example 500, but a scheme was put forward to provide 550 which was acceptable to Planning Officers.

Councillor Blunt confirmed that the Government Policy was to drive for more homes. 

Councillor Beales commented that it was an important point that on some sites it was sensible, but on others it was more difficult, there were also open space requirements for some sites.  It was therefore a reasonable principle to make best use of the site, although the note of caution was that it may give a degree of difficulty, but there were safeguards.  Councillor Beales also commented that it was useful to clarify the information for small villages and hamlets, that the windfall figures would still be included, and that there would be an early review of the Plan.

Councillor Blunt drew attention to a training session with the parishes where he supported the influence of small villages and hamlets in the process, which he felt gave them a degree of confidence.   

The item had been submitted to the Joint Panels for consideration and been supported.

RECOMMENDED:  1)       That the proposed modifications be agreed.

2)       That the modifications and supporting documents be made available for representations for a period of 6 weeks, and any comments received are passed to the Inspector.