Agenda item

a)            Further Consideration of Vision and Objectives

In presenting the report, the Graduate Planner reminded the Members that as part of the Local Plan review process the Vision and Objectives from the Core Strategy (2011) were presented to the LDF Task Group at a previous meeting.  A detailed discussed took place as to amendments that could potentially be made going forward.  Key themes emerged from this discussion which were debated and put forward to be included within a revised Vision and set of objectives.

The Task Group’s attention was drawn to the following sections of the report:

·         The emerging thoughts which covered the themes discussed.

·         Additional those which rose from discussions relating to the potential strategic options for the Borough.

·         Vision for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk to 20136, and a set of objections based upon the themes which had emerged from previous discussions.

The Graduate Planner explained that text to be removed appeared with a strikethrough and any next text was underlined.  This enabled the potential changes to be read in the context of those existing.  For ease of comparison the numbering presented remained unchanged from that within the Core Strategy.

Following comments on ensuring that the appropriate infrastructure was in place to support the Borough Council’s level of growth, the LDF Manager suggested that the text be amended to read:  improve strategic connections.

AGREED: The text within the document be amended as set out below:

·         Section relating to infrastructure be amended to read improve strategic connections.

b)            Further Consideration of Strategic Options for Growth

The Task Group was reminded that an earlier discussion paper was presented to Members at the last meeting which explored the level of growth required over the Local Plan Review period (2016-2036).  It highlighted that in the region of 4,000 dwellings would need to be identified through the allocation process.  Five potential strategic growth options could be accommodated across the Borough were presented and subjected to a Sustainability Appraisal, against the Borough’s twenty Sustainability Objections.  The Task Group that Option 2 Spread was the most sustainable option, but that a degree of development should be afforded to Hunstanton to support its role within the Borough, that Watlington should be afforded a higher allocation number than a Key Rural Service Centre (KRSC) recognising the presence of the train station and potential increases in rail services, that Marham should receive a higher allocation that a KRSC taking into account the presence and expansion of RAF Marham.

The Graduate Planner explained that the paper focused upon a variation of Option 2 Spread, titled 2A Hybrid Spread of Development.  The strategic growth option was presented, subjected to the sustainability appraisal alongside the original five options that were considered.

The LDF Manager explained that following the comments from the previous Task Group meeting, a corridor had been created from King’s Lynn to Watlington/Downham Market where potentially the most growth could occur and suggested that the strategy be titled “Growth Corridor”

The Task Group highlighted the importance of the correct infrastructure to support growth in the both the south and north of the Borough.  The LDF Manager explained that the King’s Lynn Transport Strategy was still being carried out in the King’s Lynn area.  However, the LDF Manager informed the Task Group that an officer from Norfolk County Council could be invited to attend a future meeting to discuss if there was something that could be done to identify the blockages and see if there was a mechanism to relief the pressure points.

The LDF Manager explained that the LDF Team would work up a plan containing outputs for the preferred option for consideration at a future meeting.

Following comments from Members on the decision not to specifically allocate residential housing sites for the Rural Villages, the LDF Manager explained that this had been predicated on Government change and advised that whilst the role of these settlements within the Borough was recognised, it was considered that contributions from smaller developments and windfall developments would ensure that those locally important settlements and their services were sustained.

In response to questions as to the criteria for determining facilities in villages, for example, Doctor’s surgery and some practices currently reaching saturation point, it was suggested that an officer from NHS Cambridge be invited to attended a future meeting.  The Principal Planner (Policy) explained that there was a limited amount that a local planning authority could do to influence expansion of or new Doctor’s surgeries. The local planning authority could allocate land but could not ensure that a Doctor’s surgery would be willing to develop on the site.

The Graduate Planner explained that the changes to Government policy was anticipated in the Autumn 2016.

AGREED: NCC Officer be invited to attend a future meeting of the Task Group.

c)            Consideration of the Settlement Hierarchy

The Graduate Planner provided an overview and explained that it ensured that new growth was appropriately distributed and the best opportunities of supporting existing and new business and community facilities was realised.

The Task Group was reminded that as part of the Local Plan Review process, it was important to consider whether Policy CS02 remained appropriate or if it required an element of refining.  The discussion paper looked at the existing settlement hierarchy (including amendments introduced through the SADMP), an overview of how this was formed; and presented a review option going forward, with the NPPF in mind.

Members’ attention was drawn to the current Settlement Hierarchy.

In response to comments to West Walton/West Walton Highway being identified as a KRSC and the potential to be split to become two separate villages, the LDF Manager explained that if the two villages were decoupled that it might end up with no growth or small scale.

Concern was expressed that Grimston/Pott Row with Gayton was a KRSC and the comment was made that Gayton could be a standalone village

Following comments on going forward with Key Rural Service Centres, the LDF Manager explained that there were a number of elements to consider as set out below:

·         What services were available.

·         Suitable sites/constraints.

It was explained that forms have been sent to the Parish Councils for their input (Appendix 1).

Members were reminded that the existing settlement hierarchy had been used to direct growth to sustainable settlements since the adoption of the Core Strategy in 2011.  The review would allow the opportunity to reassess the tier each settlement had been assigned to.

The LDF Manager advised that it was suggested that the assessment criteria be modified to take account of the NPPF as set out in section 4 of the discussion paper.

AGREED: The existing settlement hierarchy be reviewed at the next meeting of the Task Group.