Agenda item

Weeting Ward

Minutes:

Croxton

 

Three amendments were proposed to the existing settlement boundary.

 

Mr. R. King for the Parish Council stated that the Parish Council had not had the opportunity to meet to consider the proposals in this case.  He felt that while there was little to say against the recommendation, he foresaw a need in future to tighten the boundaries.  He was somewhat confused by the previous discussions above to change recommendations and so was unsure how the proposals in this case should be approached.

 

Mr. King sought clarification on the position relating to the separate part of Croxton adjoining the Thetford town boundary.

 

The Principal Planning Policy Officer reiterated the importance for parishes to respond to the formal public consultation period in April and also explained that, as in other cases, there was an option for the proposals in this case to be discussed with the Parish Council.

 

So far as that part of Croxton lying within that part of the Thetford Area Action Plan (TAAP) area, this would form part of the consultation process of the TAAP in April/May next year and through this Task and Finish Group.

 

In answer to a question from a member, it was explained that there would be an opportunity to look at subsequent changes in circumstances as part of the periodic review of the LDF (anticipated in approximately four years’ time).

 

A proposal was made to support the amendments as recommended but additionally to further review the position with the Parish Council.

 

Lynford

 

There was no existing settlement boundary in this case and no changes were proposed.

 

No representations were made.

 

Weeting

 

Three minor amendments were recommended to the existing settlement boundary.

 

Mr. Duigan recorded the fact that he had received representations from the Ward Member in this case.

 

Mr. Monson referred to views submitted by the Ward Member in respect of amendment WEE.3.  It was felt this employment area should be retained within the settlement boundary, bearing in mind that it could potentially benefit from any future development of a bypass for Brandon.

 

The Principal Planning Policy Officer advised that the matter of the Brandon bypass / relief road was contained within the LDF being prepared by Forest Heath District Council.  As a local planning authority, Breckland was not supporting that document until such time as the issues and funding involved in the dualling of the A11 / Five Ways trunk road had been resolved.  It was also important to bear in mind that no prospective route for such a bypass had as yet been defined.

 

So far as the employment area in WEE.3 was concerned, this remained as a defined employment area.  However, due to the fact that it lay within a flood zone area, it was not considered suitable for any further additional development, which instead would be directed to the new protected development area as indicated on the map.

 

The issue had been discussed with Weeting Parish Council and it was understood the parish would not support further expansion of the existing employment area.

 

A member drew attention to the need to protect the historic rail station building.  Mr. Monson was able to advise that the Friends of Brandon Station had acquired the building from Network Rail and were formulating plans for its restoration with assistance from the Brecks Partnership.

 

CONCLUSIONS – WEETING WARD

 

Croxton -        Support the three amendments to the settlement boundary as recommended.

 

                        Additionally to further review the position with the Parish Council.

 

Lynford -         Support recommendation of no change (i.e. no settlement boundary).

 

Weeting -       Support amendments to the settlement boundary as recommended.