Agenda and minutes

Venue: Norfolk Room, The Conference Suite, Dereham

Contact: Julie Britton 

No. Item

The Chairman apologised to those who had not received all the agenda papers and assured Members that the distribution would be rectified in future.


Councillor Borrett felt that the supplements should have been numbered accordingly.


Minutes (Agenda item 1) pdf icon PDF 108 KB

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2014.

Additional documents:


The Minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2014 were agreed as a correct record.



Apologies (Agenda item 2)

To receive any apologies for absence.





Declarations of Interest (Agenda item 3)

Members are reminded that under the Code of Conduct they are not to participate and must leave the room, for the whole of an agenda item to which they have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest. 


In the interests of transparency, Members may also wish to declare any other interests they have in relation to an agenda item, that support the Nolan principles detailed within the Code of Conduct.



Councillor Borrett declared an interest as a member of his family had some land highlighted on one of the maps attached to the agenda.



Non Members wishing to address the meeting (Agenda item 5)

To note the names of any non-members who wish to address the meeting.


Councillors C Bowes, J North, G Bambridge, B Borrett, P Duigan, K Martin and A Stasiak.



Attleborough Neighbourhood Plan (ANP) (Standing Item) (Agenda item 7)


The Deputy Planning Manager provided Members with the progress made in matters relating to the Attleborough Neighbourhood Plan over the last two weeks.


The Sub-Group for Leisure had engaged Torskildsen Barclay a Leisure & Sports Consultant to provide an initial assessment of the facilities in Attleborough.    This was work in progress and there was nothing further to report at this stage. 


The Employment Sub-Group had provided a Business Breakfast on 10 September 2014 and was looking to appoint a consultant to provide assistance with the media to tie in with the A11 opening. 


The Steering Group was developing a new Neighbourhood Plan website incorporating a number of interactive elements to enable comments to be received on employment sites etc. 


Norfolk County Council Education Team had attended the last Steering Group meeting where a site for a new primary school had been discussed.


Early discussions were being had with the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP).


Proposals were being put forward to appoint a Chairman for the Economic Development Group.


The Chairman wanted to know how much involvement Attleborough Members had had in all the above.  Councillor Martin said that he and Councillor Joel had attended all meetings.  He mentioned the primary school and pointed out that two sites had been proposed and he had been pleased with the joined up thinking that had been taking place between businesses and the Headmaster.  Councillor Kiddle-Morris pointed out that there were many matters being considered in relation to Attleborough and some form of understanding needed to be put in place to eliminate any duplication of work.  Councillor North referred to the development in the south of Attleborough in relation to the link road and asked if there was any funding available to get the preliminary work underway.  She also mentioned the loss of one of the town’s open spaces that had been overturned by the Planning Inspector.  Members were informed that the Link Road Study and the Housing Study to the south of Attleborough had moved on and various routes were now being looked at.  As far as the money was concerned, discussions were being had with LEP in relation to funding.  The Chairman said that Breckland Council continued to build good relationships with the LEP.  Councillor Stasiak felt that the route of the new link road was vitally important and asked what there was to stop it being identified now and then investigate funding streams.  He preferred the route to be off the A11.  Members were informed that three routes had been identified but there was more to it than just the route there were other factors that had to be taken into account such as the speed etc.  The Deputy Planning Manager stated that a report would be coming to the next Cabinet meeting that would deal with all these issues and advice would be factored into the Cabinet decision.  Councillor Borrett mentioned the proposed new road at Thickthorn in Norwich and highlighted the way this was currently being handled by all concerned.  Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29/14


Breckland Local Plan Issues & Options Document (Agenda item 8) pdf icon PDF 30 KB

Report of the Executive Member for Assets & Strategic Development.


Please note that Appendix B (Market Towns) will be published separately due to its size.  (Paper copies will be available for Members at the meeting).


Additional documents:


The document being presented incorporated the amendments from the previous meeting and although a number of typographical errors had been spotted, it was recommended that this document be presented through to Cabinet for approval.


Members were reminded of a new designation called ‘local green space’ that could be designated through this Local Plan.  Local Green Space designation was a way to provide special protection against development for green areas of particular importance to local communities. 


Attention was drawn to page 21 that referred to Community Infrastructure Levy which Members felt should not have been included in the document.  The Planning Policy Team Leader said that this section would be discussed later in the session.


Attention was also drawn to page 7 of the document and the Chairman asked if Members were happy now that these matters had been changed at their request.


Councillor Borrett asked what role settlements had if they wanted to retain their settlement boundaries.  Members were informed that the Planning Policy Team would be writing to all parishes to discuss these matters through the consultation.  Councillor Kiddle-Morris advised that it would not be sensible to have settlement boundaries on some parishes and not on others and he mentioned clustering.  The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) recognised the role of clusters of settlements within an area; for example, where there were groups of smaller settlements; development in one village could support services in a village nearby - Gressenhall and Beetley were given as an example of a settlement cluster.  Councillor Bambridge said that he had always been a great supporter of settlement boundaries but was happy with the flexible approach; however, if settlement boundaries were to be removed he would prefer to have designated areas of no development being put in place.  Members were informed that there were ways that policies could be put in place that could tie any future development into a settlement without the need for a boundary and this was something that the Council could consider. 


Attention was drawn to page 23 of the document in relation to the reduction in population figures for Swanton Morley.  The Chairman said that this figure must have included the Army Base but was worth checking.  Councillor Turner said that Shipdham figures needed to be checked too. 


It was felt that the yellow print used to define the question numbers was not very clear and should be changed.


Councillor Borrett asked if the responses from the Parish Councils were given any weight.    The Planning Policy Team Leader advised that all responses would be summarised and would be brought back to the Local Plan Working Group forthwith to establish the preferred option.  Parish Councils had a significant amount of local knowledge therefore more factual information would be taken on board; however, the weight would be less if there was no evidence to back up the argument, in other words there had to be a reasoned argument and a reasoned response.  Councillor Kiddle-Morris explained that if responses came back stating  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30/14