Issue - meetings

MOTION

I hereby move that C76 Meadow Lane be reinstated into the local plan. This motion is based upon the recommendation that was given by the planning officers and the thorough site assessment methodology that was provided by independent consultants.

CASE OF SITE ASSESSMENT C76 MEADOW LANE

In the case of site C76 - Meadow Lane, the assessment by officers noted that the site records one of the best scores in the Coalville Urban Area with, good access to services and facilities, and, after careful consideration, they reached a conclusion, that the site was placed first in the hierarchy for housing development in the area.

GUIDELINES AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS

The Guide to Probity in Planning for Councillors and Officers, suggest that where advice and recommendation for acceptance are given by officers - then generally these recommendations should be followed. Where councillors decide to overturn the advice, then the decision and reasons need to be explained and documented.

APPEAL RISKS AND COSTS

It is important to recognize that non-inclusion in the local plan may result in an appeal to the planning inspectorate with the appeal being based on national and local planning policy guidance and in this instance, it is particularly relevant given that the officers have already concluded that the site meets the criteria. 

A rejection increases the likelihood of the council losing the appeal, potentially, this could leave the Council in the position that the new local plan submission could be rejected, potentially leaving North West Leicestershire open to widespread development.

CONCLUSION 

Given that a strong recommendation was given by the planning officers, I strongly urge that we consider the matter of C76 Meadow Lane and that it be included in our Regulation 19 submission. This is particularly important especially given the risks associated with a rejection. It is important that proper consideration has been given and that we are certain that we have attained the best outcome for the entire community within the District.

At the Council meeting of 20 February 2025, a motion was submitted in relation to the land at Meadow Lane, calling for it to be reinstated into the Local Plan. In accordance with Rule 12.9 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Chair of the Council determined that it should be automatically referred back to the Local Plan Committee for consideration at this meeting.
The motion was presented and moved by Councillor S Lambeth and seconded by Councillor P Moult at the Council meeting. Councillor P Moult reserved his right to speak during this item.

A discussion ensued between Councillors, speaking for and against the motion. In opposition, concerns were raised around environment protection, flooding risks, congestion, safety for pedestrians, local service pressures and protection of agricultural land. It was emphasised that the pressure on local services and its impact on the local community should come first.

In support, concerns about the importance of providing fair allocations across the district, the need for allocations due to sites safeguarded for the HS2 project, the likelihood of the site being allocated by external inspectors due to its sustainability, and the risk of the Local Plan not being ready in time or rejected. Some comments addressed the concerns about inclusion of the site. Public rights of way would be resolved at the planning stage and the site was found to have a low risk of flooding. It was added that in an assessment undertaken by an independent consultant working for the Council, the site scored highly. The importance of probity was emphasised, as the site was originally recommended by officers to be included in the draft  Local Plan.

A recorded vote being requested, the voting was detailed below.

The motion was put to vote and LOST.

RESOLVED THAT:

C76 Meadow Lane not be reinstated into the Local Plan.