Agenda and minutes

To receive and note any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor R D Bayliss.

Under the Code of Conduct members are reminded that in declaring disclosable interests you should make clear the nature of that interest and whether it is pecuniary or non-pecuniary.

There were no interests declared.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 12 November 2014.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 12 November 2014.

In response to a question from Councillor D De Lacy, the Director of Services advised that where there was a recommendation in a report to note the comments of the Advisory Committee and diametrically opposite views had been expressed by members, the subsequent report would contain an officer recommendation, however all views expressed would be noted within the report.

It was moved by Councillor J Legrys, seconded by Councillor V Richichi and

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 November 2014 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Terms of Reference attached.

By affirmation of the meeting it was

RESOLVED THAT:

The Terms of Reference be noted.

Report of the Director of Services.

The Director of Services presented the report to members, which was further to the initial report considered by the Advisory Committee in September.  He reiterated that members had asked for engagement to take place on the limits to development and the town centre boundaries.  He advised that the report documented what had taken place and the comments received during the consultation process.  He added that the maps appended to the report showed those areas where officers considered that there may be some merit to amending the boundaries as a result of the comments received, and therefore where no map was provided, there was no proposed change to the boundaries.

The Chairman advised that he had received a request to speak to this item from Councillor A C Saffell, and he would invite him to speak at the appropriate time during the debate.

Councillor S Sheahan commented that the map for Moira was missing quite a bit of the village, including Donisthorpe Lane and Measham Road.  He acknowledged that it would have been difficult to fit it all in however it would have been helpful to see the whole village.

The Planning Policy Team Manager acknowledged this point, and advised that as there were no changes proposed to that part of Moira, the map had been enlarged for clarity.

Councillor S Sheahan requested that clearer maps be made available in future.

Councillor C Large highlighted the section of the report which referred to the Retail Capacity Study, which would take into account issues such as future housing growth.  She stated that Castle Donington had a proposed diminished town centre boundary with future housing growth.  She commented that it could be argued changing the boundary in this way was premature taking into account the proposed development.  She added that in Melbourne, for example, the shops had spread up the main street as a result of increased housing, and she had concerns that such an opportunity might be missed in Castle Donington if the boundary was reduced.

The Planning Policy Team Manager stated that the approach taken followed advice in national planning policy, which was to focus on existing uses.  He added that in Borough Street, there was also some residential use, so there was some scope there for retail uses to take over these premises at a future date.  He advised that officers were seeking to ensure that the town centre boundary was defensible in line with the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Councillor C Large asked when the results of the Retail Capacity Study would be available.

The Planning Policy Team Manager advised that a draft report was expected imminently.  He clarified that this would be a district level study.

The Chairman invited Councillor A C Saffell to speak as the Castle Donington town centre boundaries were currently under discussion.

Councillor A C Saffell stated that a survey had been undertaken which identified the shops outside of the retail area.  He stated that there was a shop at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

Report of the Director of Services.

The Director of Services presented the report to members.  He recalled that this meeting had been deferred as the outcome of the Charnwood Local Plan examination was awaited.  He added that officers felt it was appropriate to give an update as Charnwood was clearly of the most relevance as it was relying upon part of the same evidence base as the Council, the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA).  He stated that using the SHMA as part of the evidence base had been tested through the Charnwood examination and there had been some challenge from developers on this point.  He advised that the full view from the Inspector was not yet known, however it was telling that no specific issues had been raised regarding the validity of the SHMA.  He added that this was good news as it was one of the key risks, as if the SHMA was found wanting it would have a significant knock-on effect on the Council’s Local Plan.  He stated that this was positive news, and the SHMA would still be utilised as the starting point, and there would be no need to revisit this work.  The Inspector’s final decision was still awaited, and it was not yet know what modifications he would be requesting.

Councillor J Legrys welcomed the statement from the Director of Services.  He stated that he had had the opportunity to have a lengthy meeting with his Labour colleagues at Charnwood regarding and he was not as excited as the Director of Services regarding the SHMA based on their response.  He commented that the SHMA was only comfortable until it was challenged by a developer and this could happen at any time.  He referred to the outstanding judicial review against the Inspector’s decision on the Packington Nook application, and sought clarification whether there was a challenge on the SHMA from the developer.  He expressed concerns that the SHMA was fragile.  He added that he was confident about dealing with any challenge, however he would appreciate clarity on the position regarding the Packington Nook application.

The Legal Advisor clarified that there was an ongoing judicial review in respect of the Packington Nook application. The Council was the second defendant and would be putting forward a robust defence.

Councillor C Large requested an update on the timescales for the Local Plan and the current position on the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) in respect of further assessments and deliverability.

The Planning Policy Team Manager advised that it was intended to recommend a draft Local Plan to Council in the early summer.  A consultation would then follow and depending on the outcome of this it was likely to take a further 4 to 5 months to recommend the final Local Plan to Council which would be submitted to the Secretary of State 3 to 4 months afterwards.  He advised that the SHLAA would need to be updated.  He added that deliverability was considered in a general sense, but not in as much detail as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.