Agenda item

(i)            Habitats regulations Issues – Inspector’s Note to the Council

(ii)          Deliverability & Flexibility Implications – to receive a verbal update.

The LDF Manager explained that the Local Plan Examination was adjourned on the opening day in order to give the Council an opportunity to address a number of issues that had been identified.  The issues were:

·         Compliance with the Habitat Regulations.

·         Flexibility if allocated sites failed to come forward.

·         Flooding.

The LDF Manager gave a Powerpoint presentation which set out the Council’s approach to the issues raised by the Inspector.

Members’ attention was drawn to the note from the Inspector attached at page 8 of the Agenda. 

In response to questions from Councillor Moriarty regarding sites affected by the Habitat Regulations and the impact on West Norfolk, the LDF Manager explained that the Habitat Regulations referred to European designated sites only and gave examples of Dersingham Bog, Roydon Common, Ouse and other sites.  The LDF Manager explained that Habitat Regulations Assessments were necessary in order to identify any sites which could become potentially damaged from occupants of new growth proposed in the Plan.  The Habitats Regulations Assessments would recommend a number of measures to mitigate any issues.  The Task Group was advised that an 8 to 10 m zone would be drawn around each of the sensitive sites.

Following questions from Councillor Mrs Watson on sites in Brancaster being affected, the LDF Manager advised that the National Trust would have identified their own marsh areas and addressed any measures required in relation to the impact of growth within the Borough.  The LDF Manager explained that contact should be made with the specific organisations to ascertain the current pressures and the cumulative impact of growth on the North Norfolk Coast and the whole of the Borough.

Councillor Crofts commented on the local opposition regarding the West Winch proposal and asked if Parish Councils would be consulted again.  In response, the LDF Manager explained that a petition of 90 signatures had been received at the consultation stage.  A recommendation to Cabinet would be to reinstate the land at West Winch (approximately 320 units) as an allocation.  The Inspector required major modifications to the Plan, there would be an opportunity for representations to be made within a six week consultations period which would then be sent direct to the Inspector who would determine the decision.

The Executive Director, Development and Environment informed the Task Group there were two issues to consider:

·         Does the Borough Council respond to the deliverability and flexibility implications?

·         Delivery of broader allocations.

Following questions from Councillor Moriarty on the removal of the section of the West Winch allocation and the overall affect, etc, the LDF Manager advised that there were various scenarios for the strategic direction of growth in the West Winch/ North Runcton corridor where 1600 hours were required up to the period 2026.  However, it was explained that the larger allocation was capable of taking 3200 to 3500 support longer term growth.  It was therefore expected that the landowner would provide an Infrastructure Development Plan which would include the delivery of the higher number of units.

Following further questions from Councillor Moriarty on the sites allocated being able to accommodate a higher number than specified, the LDF Manager explained that the intensification would be mostly on larger sites of 150+ not on the smaller sites of 5 or less.  The Principal Planner (LDF) advised that when the Group identified potential sites the surrounding density and character was considered together with suggestions for specific styles, and this was reflected in the form and size of the allocation.  In conclusion, the Principal Planner (LDF) explained that there would not be much difference with the smaller sites.

Councillor Moriarty commented that he was concerned that if certain sites had constraints it could mean that they would not come forward. 

Councillor Crofts referred to the petition received regarding the West Winch proposal.  However, the residents had not objected to development on the opposite side of the road.  The Borough Council had taken comments from representations into account.

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings informed the Task Group that new regulations and information had now been received which Members needed to consider.

The LDF Manager explained that the Inspector had asked for a schedule of allocated sites at risk from flooding and the Council’s approach to their development.  Councillor Moriarty raised concern regarding the Council supplying a schedule and the general response about a fall-back position.

RESOLVED:

(1)          Habitats Regulations Issues

The Task Group noted:

a)     The Inspector’s letter to the Council and the additional work required.

Cabinet be asked to agree the following:

b)    Agreed that one element of an enhanced approach would be a levy of £50 on all new housing to be put towards mitigate and monitoring of growth on European Sites.

c)    Agreed that a group chaired by the Borough Council be initiated to co-ordinate the provision of green infrastructure in West Norfolk and to recommend spending on mitigation and monitoring or avoiding damage from the new housing growth and recreational pressures.

d)    The preparation of a Mitigation and Monitoring Strategy for the protection of European Sites outlining the range of measures to comply with the HRA requirements.

(2)          Flexibility and Deliverability

a)      There is a clear need to demonstrate that the SADMP can provide certainty on meeting the overall housing figures.

b)     In seeking to do this the Task Group notes that:

·           Clarity on the Environment Agency previously agreed approach to flood risk will be sought, to ensure advise is still current.

·           Additional clarity will be provided about HRA requirements.

c)      Agree that the response to the Inspector should include:

·           Reference to infill/windfall permissions not previously included in calculations.

·           Acknowledgement that this is scope for intensifying numbers on some allocations.

·           Monitoring/Policy for early review of the Plan.

d)     Agree to re-instate land at West Winch (approx. 320 units) as an allocation.