Appendix E - Monitoring and Implementation Framework
The Principal Planning Policy Officer drew Members’ attention to page 38 of the agenda, which contained the two final sections of the Site Specifics document.
Gypsy and Travellers
Breckland Council was required to provide 15 permanent pitches by 2011 along the A11 corridor. The focus of search would be in the Attleborough area. Temporary transit provision would also be required.
Officers were recommending that no action be taken until more evidence was available.
A Member suggested that it would be a good time to discuss this matter with South Norfolk. He understood that they were considering a site near the A11 at Spooner Row, which was close to Breckland Council’s boundary, and might provide an opportunity for the two Councils to work together for the benefit of both.
The Principal Planning Policy Officer said that they had been consulted on South Norfolk’s proposals which were progressing as part of their LDF process. However, with respect to Breckland, Officers considered that there was insufficient evidence to recommend a specific site within the Site Specifics document as it related to Dereham, Swaffham and Watton.
Members generally felt that the Council should be pro-active and it was suggested that the Group should send a message suggesting that the Chief Executive or Chairman should speak to South Norfolk.
The term ‘pitch’ was clarified. This related to a concrete pad for the standing of up to two caravans – one permanent and one visitor.
A Member noted that at the site in Swaffham some people were resident that did not qualify as gypsies or travellers. The Principal Planning Policy Officer explained that from a planning perspective, such sites were conditioned for occupation by persons of ‘nomadic’ habit.
Monitoring and Implementation Framework
This section was included in the document to give developers and all other stakeholders, information on how plans would be assessed and monitored. It would be updated after the Cabinet meeting.
The Chairman asked if the Cabinet meeting would be a joint meeting. He was concerned that the Group had met eight times but that the Cabinet would only have a short time to discuss the Group’s conclusions.
The Principal Planning Policy Officer said that the Core Strategy Document had gone through a similar process and the minutes and outcomes from the LDF Group meetings had formed the basis of the report to Cabinet. Where there had been consistency between the Officers, Group and Town and Parish Councils they had not discussed those items, Cabinet had focussed on those areas where there had been contention.
The Chairman asked if the Group’s recommended changes counted as agreement or not and the Principal Planning Policy Officer said that a number of changes had been agreed and others, that were considered to affect the ‘soundness’ of the document, had been flagged as areas of concern.
The Chairman requested that the Officers’ report to Cabinet should be circulated to Group members before it was submitted. If Members were not satisfied with the contents of the report another meeting of the Group would be arranged.