Agenda and minutes

Venue: The Anglia Room, Conference Suite, Elizabeth House, Dereham

Contact: Committee Services  Tel 01362 656870

Items
No. Item

30.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 129 KB

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 May 2008.

Minutes:

A correction was made to minute 21/08 to record the under-mentioned declaration of interest, subject to which the minutes of the meeting held on 6 May 2008 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

 

  • Mr. R. Childerhouse – Personal and prejudicial interest as a landowner in respect of any LDF matters relating to Weeting.

 

31.

Apologies

To receive apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Mrs. M.P. Chapman-Allen, Mr. P.J. Duigan, Mr. K. Martin and Mrs. P. Quadling.

 

32.

Declaration of Interest

Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any of the following items on the agenda.  The Members' Code of Conduct requires that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a personal or prejudicial interest.

Minutes:

The following declarations were made:

 

  1. Mr. W.P. Borrett – Personal and prejudicial interest in regard to LDF matters relating to North Elmham as landowner and a family member has land submitted under the LDF.
  2. Mr. A.P. Joel – Personal interest in regard to LDF matters as a member of Old Buckenham Parish Council and has a friend and knows others who have submitted applications under the LDF.
  3. Mrs. L. Turner – Personal interest in LDF matters as member of Dereham Town Council.
  4. Mrs. D. Irving - Personal interest in LDF matters as member of Dereham Town Council.
  5. Mrs. P. Spencer - Personal interest in LDF matters as member of Thetford Town Council.
  6. Mr. J.W. Nunn – Personal and prejudicial interest as landowner in regard to LDF site specifics matters in North Lopham.
  7. Mr. P. Cowen – Personal interest in matters relating to the LDF as an architect in practice and with a personal and prejudicial interest in regard to site specifics matters in relation to six villages within his ward and as a consequence of his business.
  8. Mr. R. Childerhouse – Personal and prejudicial interest as a landowner in regard to LDF matters relating to Weeting.
  9. Mr. B. Rose – Personal interest in relation to LDF matters within his Ward of Two Rivers.
  10. Mr. I.A.C. Monson – Personal and prejudicial interest in relation to LDF site specifics relating to Oxborough.
  11. Councillor C. Bowes – Personal interest in regard to LDF and site specific matters relating to Watton, Saham Toney and Hilborough.
  12. Mr. M. Kiddle-Morris – Personal interest in regard to LDF matters relating to his Launditch Ward.
  13. Mr. R. Kemp – Personal and prejudicial interest in regard to LDF matters relating to East Harling.
  14. Mr. J.P. Labouchere – Personal interest in regard to LDF matters relating to North Elmham and Hermitage ward generally.
  15. Mr. J.D. Rogers – Personal and prejudicial interest in regard to LDF and site specifics matters as landowner in Carbrooke and with knowledge of other people who have submitted applications under the LDF.

 

33.

Non-Members Wishing to Address the Meeting

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

Minutes:

The following members were in attendance:

 

Mr W.P. Borrett

Councillor Claire Bowes

Mr A.J. Byrne

Mr J.P. Cowen

Councillor E. Gould

Mrs S.R. Howard-Alpe

Mrs D.K.R. Irving

 

Mr R. Kemp

Mr M.A. Kiddle-Morris

Mr J.P. Labouchere

Mr. J.W. Nunn

Mr B. Rose        

Mrs A.L. Steward

 

 

34.

Local Development Framework: Site Specifics Policies and Proposals Document - Consultation Draft (Agenda Item 6) pdf icon PDF 103 KB

Report of the Strategic Director (Transformation).  Appendix A to the report (Site Specific Policies and Proposals Issues and Options Consultation Document) is enclosed as a separate document.  (Due to its size, Appendix A is not available electronically and is therefore produced in paper format only.)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The report was introduced by the Environmental Planning Manager and presented by the Principal Planning Policy Officer, Senior Planning Policy Officer and Planning Policy Assistant.

 

The draft consultation on Site Specifics Issues and Options was the first key stage in the process of producing the Site Specifics Development Plan document which ultimately would be incorporated within the suite of other strategy and policy documents to form the Local Development Framework (LDF).  Together with the associated Thetford Area Action Plan in the following item, the document would identify the allocations of land needed to deliver the strategic growth for homes and employment and associated services and infrastructure in Breckland over the life of the LDF to 2026.

                                                                                                       

The Site Specifics process involved distinct reviews of site allocations and settlement boundaries.   Site allocation was aimed towards a positive identification of land for developments of five or more houses.  The review of settlement boundaries offered some flexibility to look at loosening or tightening settlement boundaries and was essentially a policy tool setting out where development would or could take place.

 

The Council had relative flexibility in how it presented the first public consultation stage.  The assistance of town and parish councils was being enlisted to help roll out the consultation to the wider community and stakeholders and a programme of question and answer sessions with town and parish councils had commenced on 19 May and was due to run until the end of July (see appendix B of the report for details). 

 

The consultation document identified those sites that had been submitted to the Council for consideration as part of the LDF in response to the official call for sites.  The call for sites had resulted in 650 applications being submitted. This was a similar approach to that which had been undertaken by a number of authorities and the recent Norfolk Minerals and Waste LDF.  However, to enable a balanced approach to be taken and avoid the sort of undue public concern which had affected the consultation on the Norfolk Minerals and Waste LDF, the application sites in the draft Site Specifics consultation document had been categorised into three broad groups, namely: conforming; non-conforming; and unreasonable.  This preliminary assessment had been made using the Breckland LDF Core Strategy.

 

Conforming sites were defined as those suitably located to deliver allocations in named locations for growth and where sites had been put forward within existing settlement boundaries.  Non-conforming sites were those located in potential locations for growth if the Core Strategy was amended or where there were issues, such as flood risk, with a site which was in a settlement for growth.  Unreasonable sites were those which could not sustainably deliver the Strategy by way of significant allocations and were mainly those sites in villages and hamlets.  It was possible that some of the sites within this category could be addressed through amendments to settlement boundaries; however, there was no certainty that their inclusion within a settlement boundary would result in development.

 

The first stage  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

35.

Local Development Framework: Thetford Area Action Plan: Issues and Options Consultation Document (Agenda Item 7) pdf icon PDF 96 KB

Report of the Strategic Director (Transformation).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

An introduction was given by the Environmental Planning Manager and the report was presented by the Principal Planning Officer (Thetford Growth Point).

 

It was explained that the Thetford Area Action Plan (TAAP) Issues and Options consultation was to run in tandem with the Breckland Site Specifics consultation and would form one of the Development Plan Documents for Breckland District.  The consultation was proposed to be launched in the week commencing 23 June 2008 and would run for a period of six weeks, ending in the first week of August.

 

The TAAP was concerned with the specific regeneration and growth issues for Thetford as a whole. 

 

The consultation and assessment processes were the same as for the preceding item.

 

In addition to the consultation document as presented, a simpler, leaflet version was also being prepared for distribution to every household in the town, which would set out the questions as contained in the main document.

 

A member expressed the hope that developers would engage sufficiently to offer the town a more affordable and viable town centre, bearing in mind that many independent shops had closed due to high rents.

 

Another member felt that the plans did not currently appear to be very ambitious and it was to be hoped that the consultation process would draw that out.  He felt the town was in need of good facilities, such as shopping mall, department store, cinema etc. to make it a vibrant place, for which the right developers were needed.

 

It was stated that the purpose of the consultation stage was to enable answers to be drawn from the results of the consultation so that more defined proposals could be considered at the preferred options stage in January 2009.

 

It was acknowledged that this would be a very challenging process to ensure that people engaged in the process.  However, there was a lot of developer interest already and key stakeholders were involved.

 

It was noted that some of the questions in the draft consultation were to be either deleted where it was felt they offered nothing to the debate (e.g. Q16 on Community Facilities) or reworded to give a more positive approach (e.g. Q12 on New Schools).

 

So far as infrastructure funding was concerned (Q25), it was explained that Thetford offered a unique opportunity to get views on the question of a single tariff or set fee on every house or other development, which was something the Government was presently considering.

 

Quality of design was acknowledged as an essential issue for the town and assistance in this work was being provided by the Government through the Commission for the Architectural and Built Environment to develop the policies which would be incorporated into the document as it progressed.  The intention was to produce a design code that would set out the key principles to be followed and the public would be involved in defining that code, which would feed into the policy and be used as a control tool.

 

It was noted that, in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

36.

Work Programme (Agenda Item 8) pdf icon PDF 59 KB

Members are invited to consider any additional items or topics for inclusion on the future work programme.

Minutes:

It was anticipated that there would be a report on responses to the LDF Core Strategy for the next meeting.

 

The remaining two items as listed for the next meeting remained to be confirmed.

37.

Next Meeting

To note the arrangements for the next meeting on 15 July 2008 at 10.00 a.m. in the Anglia Room, Conference Suite, Elizabeth House, Dereham.

Minutes:

The arrangements for the next meeting on 15 July 2008 were noted.