Agenda item

Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube

The Graduate Planner presented a draft SWOT analysis for the new local plan, inviting feedback from The Task Group.

Strengths of the Borough: The team had identified strengths such as a rich natural, historic, and cultural environment, robust retail provision, vibrant coastal tourism, local civic pride, proactive regeneration, and key employment sites including Palm Paper, RAF Marham, British Sugar Plant, Construction College at Bircham Newton, College of West Anglia, and King's Lynn Port. Councillor Blunt and other Councillors suggested including the Borough Council as a major employer and the agricultural economy as further strengths.

Opportunities for Development: Opportunities discussed included creating a sustainable area for living, working, and visiting, expanding green infrastructure, diversifying housing types and tenures, improving transport corridors, regenerating town centres, enhancing rural connectivity, climate change mitigation, biodiversity enhancement, and broadening tourism and economic resilience. Officers clarified that the local plan was seen as an opportunity to address those areas, with input from regeneration and open space teams.

Weaknesses Identified: Weaknesses highlighted were a shortfall of affordable housing, limited public transport and connectivity, health inequalities, development constraints (including flood risk), limited employment pools, difficulty attracting skilled workers, tourism concentration in coastal areas, loss of community facilities, inflated house prices, and digital 'not spots'. Councillors Crofts, Sandell, Parish, and Everett raised concerns about terminology, affordable housing uptake, tourism promotion, and digital access. 

It was agreed to clarify that the use of "affordable housing" in measurable outcomes and that it was meant as per the planning definition set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Local Plan. .

Threats to the Area: Threats included economic viability issues, widespread flood risk, demographic imbalances, loss of economic hubs, limited public funding, failure to deliver housing, traffic congestion, closure of community facilities, decline of town centres, climate change impacts, skill and labour shortages, environmental impacts from recreation, and threats to community resilience. Additional threats discussed were loss of rural identity, energy infrastructure inadequacies, derelict properties, and the impact of large solar farms on agricultural land.

Terminology and Public Engagement: The team emphasised the importance of using clear, non-technical language in public consultations, ensuring terms like 'economic containment' were explained, and making engagement accessible to all demographics. Councillors highlighted the need for balance between growth and sustainability, and the importance of involving parish councils and local communities in identifying green spaces and heritage assets.  It was also agreed to replace the term "working class" with more appropriate terminology such as "key workers" or a more inclusive phrase.

It was also agreed to review and amend American spellings in all draft documents before publication to ensure British English was used throughout.

The Task Group adjourned for a comfort break at 11.20 am and reconvened at 11.30 am.

Drafting Vision and Measurable Outcomes: The Graduate Planner outlined the process for drafting the vision and ten measurable outcomes for the new local plan, with Councillors Crofts, Parish, Lintern, Sandell, de Whalley, and Blunt providing feedback on the wording, measurability, and relevance of outcomes, and raising concerns about affordable housing terminology, settlement hierarchy, and the practicalities of delivering targets.

Measurable Outcomes Overview: The team presented ten draft measurable outcomes, including providing diverse housing choice, directing growth to sustainable locations, promoting economic growth, ensuring high quality and sustainable design, promoting healthier communities, protecting heritage and character, enhancing biodiversity, supporting net zero carbon transition, ensuring infrastructure funding, and delivering around 8000 new homes.

Feedback on Outcome Wording: Councillors suggested revising outcome wording to avoid repetition, merge similar objectives, and clarify terms such as 'affordable' and 'accessible' housing. Councillor Sandell noted that 'affordable' was not truly affordable in West Norfolk, and Councillor Lintern questioned the use of 'deliver' for new homes, given factors outside council control.

Settlement Hierarchy Concerns: Councillors Parish and Sandell raised concerns about the settlement hierarchy leading to saturation in certain villages, with Docking cited as an example of infrastructure strain due to rapid development. The need to recognise saturation levels and balance growth across communities was emphasised.

Measurability and Control: Officers explained that outcomes must be quantifiable, such as new homes delivered or affordable homes provided, and that some outcomes (e.g., high quality design) required specific indicators. The process included benchmarking and monitoring over the plan period, with government requirements for measurable objectives.

Active Travel and Green Space Metrics: Councillor de Whalley advocated for including active travel links and green space provision as measurable outcomes, suggesting metrics such as kilometres of travel routes and hectares of green space. Officers confirmed these were currently measured and would continue to be included in the plan.