Agenda item

The Chairman has extended an invitation to all Members for this item.

The Corporate Project Officer provided the Panel with a presentation on the history of the NORA project and an update on the housing development, as attached.  He provided detail of the NORA project, the site and its ownership, and the work carried out on the site to date.  The Panel was informed that at a future meeting they would receive updates on the industrial side of the site and elements such as the King’s Lynn Innovation Centre and Heritage Action Zone status.

The Panel’s attention was drawn to the slide which detailed what the Borough Council had achieved on the site and it was explained that development could now take place on the site where contamination issues had been dealt with and infrastructure was in place.

The Panel was provided with information on the housing which had been delivered on the site.  It was explained that the project had been delivered in phases under a Joint Venture with Norfolk County Council.  The Panel was informed that all of the properties on Phase 1 and 2 had been sold, with the exception of one unit on Phase 2, and two units that were being kept as show homes for Phase 3.  Some of the Phase 3 units were being sold ‘off plan’.  The Panel was provided with detail of the sale prices of the units and explained that these had been adjusted throughout the phases to reflect the housing market.

The Chairman thanked the Corporate Project Officer for his presentation and invited questions and comments from the Panel, as summarised below.

Councillor Howland referred to the housing development and asked why the road was at the minimum width.  He referred to traffic problems in housing estates and that when vehicles were parked on the side of the road it was sometimes difficult to get passed.  The Corporate Project Officer explained that the road widths were determined by Norfolk County Council Highways and that there was parking provision on site, which included parking bays, and parking courts.

Councillor Mrs Watson commended the Corporate Project Officer for a clear presentation which she had enjoyed.  Other Members of the Panel agreed that the presentation had been excellent.

Councillor Mrs Wright referred to the concrete which was underground and would need to be removed before development could take place.  She asked if the concrete could be reused and was aware of other places where it had been used for flood defences.  The Corporate Project Officer informed the Panel that crushed concrete had a value as it was a type 1 material.  The concrete was three meters thick, which made removal a problem.  He explained that if it was a smaller amount it could be broken up on site and sold.  However, because of the amount and thickness of the concrete, the most economical way to get rid of it would to be bring in someone external to break it up and take it away.

Councillor Mrs Collingham referred to landscaping and trees.  She referred to the pictures of the housing development which had been included in the presentation and felt that there was a lack of trees.  The Corporate Project Officer explained that Norfolk County Council Highways would not permit trees close to the road because of potential ingress into the road and services.  The Panel was informed that strips of trees had been planted in open spaces, in between blocks and wherever else they could be accommodated.

In response to a question from Councillor Pope, the Corporate Project Officer explained that the foundations had been piled.  Councillor Pope also asked for information on the benefits of becoming a Millennium Community.  The Corporate Project Officer explained that it allowed access to funding and grants and the Chief Executive explained that it was highly unlikely that the scheme would have obtained funding without the Millennium Communities Award.

The Portfolio Holder for Corporate Projects and Assets, Councillor Beales, referred to the comments made about trees and planting.  He explained that the Housing on site looked very different now that trees were established.  He referred to the Major Housing Development at Lynnsport and explained that trees had been retained as much as possible.  He felt that trees were important because as well being good for the environment they improved the amenity of the area.

The Portfolio Holder for Corporate Projects and Assets felt that the benefit of the work which had already been carried out had been huge, and had it been required today, it perhaps would not have been possible due to financial constraints on public finances.  He explained that the Regeneration Team had recently been restructured and finances and priorities would be looked at.  He felt that there could be some difficult decisions required by Members in the future on what schemes could be taken forward.

The Portfolio Holder for Culture, Heritage and Health, Councillor Mrs Nockolds explained that the Council was in the process of developing a Tree Strategy and consultation was ongoing on where people felt that additional planting was required.  The Strategy could be presented to the Panel for consideration at the appropriate time.  The Corporate Project Officer explained that as part of the Major Housing Development at Lynnsport, the Council were looking to plant well established trees, which would be six feet tall, this would hopefully ensure that they were substantial enough to protect them from vandalism, and provide a raised canopy so that you could still see underneath, which should deter antisocial behaviour.

In response to a question from the Chairman, the Corporate Project Officer explained that Phase 3 of the housing project should deliver approximately fifty units.  Once Phase 3 was completed, the housing land on the Morston Assets site would be looked at along with other areas on the NORA site which were allocated for housing.  The Corporate Project Officer anticipated that there would be at least three more years’ worth of housing development on the site before completion.  The Panel was informed that there was affordable housing provision as part of the development with 15% of the units being affordable housing.  Some were affordable rent and some were shared equity.

The Panel discussed the design of the houses at NORA.  The Portfolio Holder for Corporate Projects and Assets explained that during the different phases of the projects designs were tweaked, improvements made and lessons learnt.  He explained that consideration needed to be given to finances.  He commented that the design inside the units and finishes were very good.

In response to a question from the Chairman, the Corporate Project Officer explained that going forward contamination issues would continue to be looked at.  He explained that judgements would be made on if units were to be developed, if the contamination issues were severe.  He explained that one unit was not built in Phase 2 because the cost of dealing with contamination would be too much, instead the plot was used as open space.

RESOLVED: The report was noted.