Issue - meetings

Report of the Planning Policy Team Manager

The Planning Policy Team Manager presented the report.

In response to a question about whether it was possible and appropriate to bring developers with large-scale proposals before the Committee, the Planning Policy Team Manager advised how it would work: once officers had suggested their preferred sites it may then be the opportune moment to bring developers before the committee. It would be an unrealistic timeframe between now and the next meeting of the Committee. The preferred sites should be selected first.

A Member commended the idea of bringing developers before the committee but suggested that there was a number of points to consider: September was earmarked for putting land allocation proposals in front of the committee; the mechanics of bringing developers in must be fair and equitable when deciding which developers to bring before the committee, and due consideration must be given to legal matters and conflicts of interests, particularly for members who were also on the Planning Committee.

The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager acknowledged that the question of how to fairly determine which developers spoke before the Committee was an important one. In response to a question about how the provision of services, infrastructure and amenities for a given development was managed, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager advised that any proposed  allocation would have individual requirements attached to it that any future development would need to satisfy. Following that there would be consultation with stakeholders. In addition,the next stage of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan would look in specific detail at each site in terms of what was required. 

Any development would always be subject to viability, and adjustments may need to be made. However, most infrastructure would emerge in a phased manner throughout the life of the development, although some critical facilities such as sewage treatment would of course be present from the opening of a site.

In response to a question about possibly beginning the process of rescinding the earlier Statement of Common Ground to take some of Leicester’s unmet housing need, the Planning Policy Team Manager said it was a matter for Council. There were significant risks attached, which would need to be taken into consideration, especially around the duty to cooperate with other councils.

In response to a question about changes to the preferred existing employment allocation and potential changes to this because of the planned Freeport, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager said that there was only one outstanding allocation, at Ashby Money Hill. It was unlikely that changes to recommendations would occur at this time: the local plan had assumptions about what was likely to be built incorporated into them. They then explained the distinction between strategic land and employment land within the Local Plan framework.

In response to a question about the legal requirement of water companies to provide sewage treatment infrastructure to a development, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager confirmed that there was an obligation to provide capacity.

In response  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5