Agenda and minutes

Venue: Anglia Room, The Conference Suite, Dereham

Contact: Julie Britton 

Items
No. Item

54/16

Minutes (Agenda item 1)

To confirm the Minutes of the following meetings:

54/16a

11 July 2016 - Thetford pdf icon PDF 122 KB

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 11 July 2016 were agreed as a correct record.

54/16b

12 July 2016 - Swaffham pdf icon PDF 102 KB

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 12 July 2016 were agreed as a correct record subject to the following amendments:

 

Minute No. 24/16(d) – site reference should read LP(092)004 and not LP(067)004 and the word Necton on page 17 of the agenda pack be changed to Sporle.

54/16c

15 July 2016 - Dereham pdf icon PDF 133 KB

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 15 July 2016 were agreed as a correct record.

54/16d

19 July 2016 - Watton pdf icon PDF 110 KB

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 19 July 2016 were agreed as a correct record.

54/16e

22 July 2016 - Attleborough pdf icon PDF 126 KB

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 22 July 2016 were agreed as a correct record, subject to the following amendments:

 

1.    Minute No. 49/16(d) Garboldisham

 

·                7th paragraph, 14th sentence to read: 0043 and 005 would be within the Settlement Boundary and would support 35 dwellings. 

·                7th paragraph, 20th sentence to read: he felt that local knowledge should be taken seriously and urged officers to remove these sites……

 

2.    Minute No. 49/16 (g) Old Buckenham

 

·         2nd paragraph, 1st sentence to read: Sarah Hornbrook, on behalf of Old Buckenham Parish Council..

 

3.    Minute No. 50/16 Necton

 

·         Agreed that:

(1) - as agreed

(2) - as agreed

(3)  - 007, 010 and 011 be put forward as the preferred sites.

 

55/16

Apologies (Agenda item 2)

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Sam Chapman-Allen due to his military commitments.

 

56/16

Declarations of Interest (Agenda item 3)

The duties to register, disclose and not to participate for the entire consideration of the matter, in respect of any matter in which a Member has a disclosable pecuniary interest are set out in Chapter 7 of the Localism Act 2011.  Members are also required to withdraw from the meeting room as stated in the Standing Orders of this Council.

 

Minutes:

None.

 

57/16

Urgent Business (Agenda item 4)

To note whether the Chairman proposes to accept any item as urgent business, pursuant to Section 100(B)(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

Minutes:

None.

 

58/16

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

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

Minutes:

Councillors M Chapman-Allen, K Millbank, L Monument, L Turner, B Borrett, H Clarke, P Claussen, P Duigan, A Joel, K Martin, R Richmond, F Sharpe, A Stasiak and P Wilkinson.

 

59/16

Chairman's Announcements (Agenda item 6)

Minutes:

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked them to state their name and parish if they wished to speak.  He explained that five very productive Local Plan Working Group meetings had been held around the District.  He urged everyone to note that this Working Group was not a decision making body and all the decisions/recommendations that had been made throughout the process would be subject to a further round of public consultation in September following approval by the Cabinet at the end of August.  The process was explained.

 

Councillor Claussen was less than impressed as he had not always been kept informed of the process going forward.   He believed that the only chance that he had to raise any issues would be at the Cabinet meeting.  Tim Mills (TM), the Executive Manager for Growth, reminded everyone that the Cabinet would only be approving the consultation document; further opportunities would be had during the six week public consultation.

 

Councillor Clarke was aware of the process and was mindful of the recommendations that had been put forward in relation to the preferred sites and settlement boundaries.  His concern related to the Transport Study which no-one had had enough time to read and asked if the same process would apply.  The Chairman assured everyone that the same consultation process would apply. 

 

Councillor Monument stated that she had not managed to get a third of the way through this 220 page document and felt that it should not be forced to Cabinet without having a proper debate because (1) it was too big, (2) there would be further comments to make and (3) there were areas that the Study did not cover that should be included.  She asked if additional information could be called for and whether the content could be questioned in detail.  In response, TM explained that the Cabinet would be agreeing this document for public consultation until the end of October so there would be plenty of opportunities for this conversation to continue.  In response to a further question, it was noted that the final draft Transport Study had been received the previous week.  Stephen Ottewell (SO), the Director of Planning & Building Control, Capita, pointed out that the Study had been broken down in various stages and had been a long time in the making.  Councillor Millbank asked if the extra housing that had been allocated had been taken into account.  SO advised that the preferred growth strategy had been considered by the Transport Study.

 

60/16

Local Plan Transport Study - Dereham (Agenda item 7) pdf icon PDF 92 KB

Report by Martin Pendlebury, Principal Policy Planner.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Martin Pendlebury (MP), the Principal Policy Planner, Capita, introduced Steve Boden the primary author of the Local Plan Transport Study for Dereham. 

 

The context of the Study was explained. 

 

Breckland Council had commissioned a Study to consider the transport impacts of the potential land use development in Dereham and the surrounding areas, including Yaxham and Mattishall.  This was a technical highway engineering Study intended to inform the Local Plan making process in terms of scale and locational strategy for allocating land for new development and understanding the individual and cumulative impacts of various development scenarios. 

 

The Study had been guided by a Steering Group made up of Officers from WYG – Transport Planning Consultants, Norfolk County Council Highways and Capita Planning Policy.  It investigated the transport impacts on 9 separate junctions in relation to the potential land use developments in the town and surrounding areas, taking into account existing allocated sites, sites with planning permissions yet to be developed and potential new sites being promoted through the Local Plan process.

 

The project specification had been broken down into three stages.  Stage 1 involved scoping the Study through targeted discussions with Breckland Council, Dereham Town Council, Norfolk County Council and Yaxham and Mattishall Parish Councils identifying local problem areas/junctions within the road network; carrying out peak hour traffic surveys; building junction models of signals and roundabouts identified as “hotspots”.  Stage 2 involved redefining and refining development assumptions and re-running the local junction models to establish if the impacts were acceptable (in terms of junction capacity, queue lengths and delays) and stage 3 required the consultants to determine possible junction/highway improvements which could mitigate the impacts arising from proposed development and the potential costs.

 

Paper copies of the Transport Study had been made available at the meeting.  A presentation was also provided. 

 

Different levels of Local Plan growth had been used to derive the detailed scenarios to be assessed.  The starting point had been the preferred option growth in the District which was 6.1% as show in table 7 on page 84 of the agenda pack.  Higher growth versions of the preferred option had also been included to test the effects of medium and high growth scenarios plus a southern expansion scenario that focused an even higher level of growth at the southern edge of the town.

 

The Study had found that the impact of the proposed development required likely improvements to a number of junctions in the town.  Page 169 of the agenda document highlighted quite a small scale scheme - changing the traffic signals could allow for greater traffic flows.  For the higher growth version (full scale development (page 170 of the agenda document refers)) a signalised roundabout would be installed linked to Greens Road; with this scenario land would have to be acquired from Roy’s carpark and Homebase.

 

SO pointed out that the presentation slides focused on 10% growth (this had not been shown in the agenda pack).  Mr Boden pointed out that some of the funding for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60/16

61/16

Interim Consultation of Preferred Sites and Settlement Boundaries (Agenda item 8) pdf icon PDF 97 KB

Stephen Ottewell,  Director Capita Planning and Building Control.

Minutes:

SO presented the report.  He explained that much had been resolved by Members during the five Local Plan Working Group sessions but it was now necessary to revisit the small number of outstanding matters where further work had been required on issues that had arisen during these meetings.  This would ensure that Officers had a clear mandate to conclude the work on the interim consultation document.  He made it clear; however, that the content of this document did not mean that it was the end of the debate as there would be further opportunities during the consultation period for amendments to be made prior to the publication of the Local Plan.

61/16a

Appendix 1 - Site Allocation Plans pdf icon PDF 7 MB

Preferred and alternative sites for:

 

                      i.        Ashill

                     ii.        Dereham

                    iii.        Garboldisham

                   iv.        Mattishall

                    v.        Old Buckenham

                   vi.        Shipdham

 

Minutes:

Ashill

 

A further pending application had been identified during the LPWG sessions situated north of the settlement boundary which had now been included in the plan.  A number of concerns had been raised over the extent of the development on the preferred site (008); therefore, the scope of this site had since been reduced and only frontage development was considered to be appropriate.

 

The Chairman of Ashill Parish Council was against the Parish being recommended as a Local Service Centre (LSC) as the audit information was flawed and widely inaccurate.  Officers should also take into account the drainage issues that would have a knock on effect at Saham Toney.  He felt that a meeting should be held with Officers prior to the Cabinet meeting to get these errors corrected.  Councillor Sharpe, the Ward Member for Ashill asked when the plan would be available showing the new Settlement Boundary to incorporate the planning applications.  He also asked what the purpose was of nominating a parish as a LSC.  In response to the first question SO advised that the plan would be amended and as far as the latter was concerned Members were informed that there would be more development in those LSCs with the appropriate services and facilities.  Councillor Sharpe advised that the development in the pipeline would take Ashill beyond what was being recommended.  SO explained that the amount of development in LSCs was 10% which satisfied the criteria.  In response to the aforementioned concern about drainage issues in the village, the Chairman pointed out that this, unfortunately, was not one of the criteria and a consistent methodology needed to be maintained.  The Chairman asked if the meeting that had been requested between Ashill Parish Council and the Planning Policy Officers had taken place, he also asked if Ashill was happy with the revised site allocations.  The Chairman of Ashill Parish Council informed Members that no meeting had taken place just an exchange of letters.  As far as the latter was concerned, it was

 

Agreed, that the revised approach to the preferred and alternative sites for Ashill for inclusion within the interim consultation be endorsed.

 

Dereham

 

Officers had updated the plans for inclusion in the consultation document to reflect the feedback received at the Local Plan Working Group meeting held on 15 July 2016.  This had resulted in site (003) being revised to an alternative site, whilst sites (007), (011) and (029) being recommended as preferred sites.  Site (001) remained as recommended as an alternative employment site as promoting it as a residential development would adversely impact upon the town’s employment strategy. 

 

Councillor Millbank, a Ward Member for Dereham & Toftwood asked if the former Maltings site had been taken into account.  SO advised that it had been factored into the numbers.  Councillor Monument, Ward Member for Dereham was delighted that site (003) was now being classed as an alternative site but disappointed that (023) was still recommended as preferred; she would have been happier if this would have been put  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61/16a

61/16b

Appendix 2 - Updated Settlement Boundary Audit pdf icon PDF 336 KB

Minutes:

Following the initial resolution to endorse the wording of revised PD05 at the first Local Plan Working Group meeting, much of the subsequent debate in the communities had revolved around the availability (or otherwise) of local services and facilities.  This had been a critical matter, on the basis that the availability of 3 services/facilities was the determining factor in whether a settlement would have a boundary or not.  Resolutions had been provided for each of the settlements discussed through the series of meetings except for a number of instances where subject to Officer confirmation, the audit information provided could be legitimately amended. 

 

The findings of those further investigations are listed below.

 

Great Dunham

 

This village contained a primary school and village hall.  There were no other services or facilities in the village and Great Dunham should therefore be designated as a PD05B settlement with no settlement boundary.  A Great Dunham representative queried the proposed development off the Litcham Road for 12 dwellings.  SO explained that at this point in time Breckland Council had to follow and work with the current Local Development Framework (LDF) which the Local Plan would eventually replace.  The Local Plan timetable was highlighted.

 

Agreed to endorse the deletion of the Settlement Boundary in line with Policy PD05B.

 

Croxton

 

It was confirmed that the village of Croxton remain as a PD05B as it only contained a village hall and a shop.  There were also no significant employment opportunities within walking distance. 

 

A Parish Council representative had issues with the audit and felt it was not particularly clear and asked for a meeting to be had with someone from Breckland Council to clarify these matters.  SO said that he would be happy to have further discussions.

 

The Vice-Chairman of Croxton Parish Council did not know which Policy PD05A or PD05B would be better suited for the village.  He felt that having a settlement boundary supported and maintained the village in certain areas.  Councillor Bambridge explained that PD05B would provide greater protection and the Ward Member should be there to help and should be able to explain.  PD05B would mean some development with local support.  He saw many advantages for small villages without a settlement boundary. Another Parish Council representative asked if more weight would be given to the Parish Council if their recommendation for a planning application was one of refusal.  SO said that community support would be crucial.

 

Agreed to endorse the deletion of the Settlement Boundary in line with Policy PD05B.

 

Stow Bedon

 

Following the Local Plan Working Group meeting, the services audit for Stow Bedon had been reviewed.  At the meeting it was highlighted that the church was being renovated to include a community centre and that the village had a farm shop and that there were many self-employed people in the community.  However, the assessment had shown that there was limited public transport within the village and the farm shop was located beyond reasonable walking distance (with no pavements) from the Mere Road  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61/16b

61/16c

Appendix 3 - Draft Policy SH1 - Snetterton Heath pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Minutes:

The Spatial Strategy for Snetterton Heath had been subject to initial discussion at the Attleborough Local Plan Working Group meeting on 22 July 2016.  It had been resolved that Officers would seek to develop initial policy wording for potential inclusion within the interim consultation.

 

The Local Plan sought to allocate 20 additional hectares of Employment land at Snetterton Heath in line with findings of the Breckland Employment Growth Study.  The two preferred sites LP(087)010 and LP(087)009 provided 28.82 hectares; however, in line with government guidance, a 20% reduction had been applied to convert from gross to net with a further 10% reduction applied to allow for appropriate landscape screening, layout and design, resulting in a total 20 hectares net internal employment land from the two sites.

 

Further to this, a change to the General Employment Area (GEA) was proposed by removing the landfill site from the GEA and reallocating this to the area to the north of site LP(087)011.  This change sought to reflect the existing uses on the GEA.  The proposed area of landfill to be removed was 7.8 hectares and the extension proposed to the GEA as show on the map was 11.1 hectares; however, once the 20% gross to net multiplier and 10% landscaping multiplier had been applied this came to 7.77 hectares.

 

The proposed policy wording had been attached at Appendix 3. This sought to ensure that the Local Plan provided adequate support for comprehensive and coordinated development of Snetterton Heath.

 

There were 3 options for consideration:

 

Option 1: Members endorsed the approach to all three elements – the revised preferred sites, the settlement boundaries and approach to Snetterton Heath.

Option 2: Members provide support for some elements of the revised approach, but not all.

Option 3: Members do not endorse the revised approach element.

 

It had been recommended that Option 1 be endorsed.

 

Mr Kemer had asked to speak on this matter and represented the owners of Snetterton Heath.  He had many concerns about the existing retail and employment use on the 27 hectares which was a significant site and he held a plan displaying the sites in question; he had been told that this plan would be put before Members but as far as he was aware it never had.  He urged Members to alter the proposed plan under delegated powers prior to the Cabinet meeting on 30 August 2016 as this land included existing retail uses and therefore the plan proposed must be changed.

 

TM advised that some general employment uses had been allocated in support of the land owners and he felt that there was nothing fundamentally different between the plans.

 

Councillor Martin reminded the meeting that Attleborough was very closely connected to Snetterton and a public consultation event was taking place in August at the Town Hall which he hoped would be well attended.

 

It was agreed that an additional layer of existing uses would be added to the plan at the appropriate stage; however, these plans had a particular  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61/16c