Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors S Lambeth, R Morris and P Moult.

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

It was noted that members of the Committee had received an email from Ms G Baker, a member of the public that spoke to the petition later in the meeting.

There were no interests declared.

To receive questions from members of the public under rule no.10 of the Council Procedure Rules.

There were 3 questions; addressed by the Chair of the Committee.

Question from Mrs G Baker
‘C86, Howe Road Whitwick is located close to historic landfill and will require further geo-environment investigation.  It is also within a mining consultation area.  I understand that this site is owned by the Council and that it was successfully nominated as a site of community value in August 2020. It only has capacity to build 17 properties, so how can development of this site benefit the council and residents?’

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee
‘Development of this site by the Council provides an opportunity to help address some of the Council’s housing priorities which might not otherwise be addressed by the housing market.

A land contamination assessment would be required as part of any planning application process.’

In response to a supplementary question, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager explained that the response to the question was set out because the plot of land was owned by the Council and one of the options was to develop 100% Council housing or affordable housing, subject to policies. This was envisaged as being most likely. The access to this site hasn’t been looked into in great detail, as of yet. It was also clarified that the Gladman developer’s interest was in land parcels to the west of Whitwick and excluded C86.

Question from Mr M Elton

‘The West Whitwick area was historically an area of sheep farming, but I am not totally clear which particular part of the site was used for sheep dipping. Sheep dip sites lead to arsenic and organophosphate contamination, which is extremely hazardous to the health of builders and potential residents if the site is developed. I have researched Part 2A of the Environment Protection Act 1990 and understand that the Council should hold records about potential areas of contamination.  What steps will the council take to ensure that homes are not built on contaminated soil in the area?’

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee
‘The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer has advised that as the site is currently agricultural land and sheep dipping is an agricultural use, it wouldn't be considered under Part 2A of the EPA 1990 so it would only be assessed if a change of use that would introduce new receptors was proposed. Furthermore, they have confirmed that farm sites would require land contamination risk assessments as part of any planning application process.’

In response to the supplementary question, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager explained that there would be a need for a contamination risk assessment as part of a planning application and so if there were any issues this is where they would be picked up together with any remediation necessary.

Question from Mr C Taylor
‘I’ve noted that some sites listed as SSSIs in the North West Leicestershire District Council’s site assessments may be out of date, as they do not appear in Natural  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 21 May 2025

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 21 May 2025.

It was moved by Councillor J Legrys, seconded by Councillor D Bigby and

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 May 2025 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

To consider the following petition submitted by Ms G Baker.

Petition Summary/Background
Draft NWL Local Plan 2020-2040 - We strongly oppose the proposal to build nearly 800 properties from Talbot Lane, Whitwick, through New Swannington into Coalville. Which will destroy our green space, and have a devastating impact on wildlife, our environment and on local resources. We also strongly oppose plans which will lead to Whitwick and Thringstone becoming part of Coalville Town, this will destroy our heritage, historical identity and communities.

Action petitioned for
We, the undersigned, are concerned residents who urge NWLDC to act now to build only our fair share of housing and commercial sites and ensure that proposals to build are designed to minimise the impact on the character of the villages and the facilities nearby.  We would also urge that the Council take seriously their responsibilities to reduce building impact on climate change and build affordable housing close to areas of employment and current networks as a priority.

There are 225 valid signatures on the petition, which in accordance with the scheme is an ‘ordinary petition’.

At the Council meeting on 13 May 2025, a petition was submitted and presented to the Committee by Ms G Baker. The petition was moved by Councillor T Gillard and seconded by Councillor Barker to be referred to the next convenient meeting of the Local Plan Committee.

After the Committee was reminded of the petition and the actions that could be taken, Members emphasised the importance of meeting the Local Plan deadlines and the risk of no plan leading to “developer anarchy”. They were concerned that further withdrawal of sites would result in a failure to meet the deadline of December 2026. It was recognised that the need for additional housing due to demographic changes was there and that it was important to trust professional advice from Planning Officers and External Agencies. Should another allocation be pulled, the Distribution Strategy would become more imbalanced.

A motion was proposed by Councillor D Bigby to note the petition. This was accepted by Members of the Committee and a recorded vote was taken.

It was moved by Councillor D Bigby and seconded by Councillor J Legrys.

The Chair put the motion to the vote. A recorded vote being requested, the voting was as detailed below.

RESOLVED THAT:

The Committee noted the petition.

The report of the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager

The Planning Policy and Land Charges presented the report, and along with the Principal Planning Officers, summarised each of the policies for consideration.  Reference was also made to the additional papers as circulated prior to the meeting.

Each policy was then discussed in turn and several questions of clarity were addressed throughout the discussion.

Policy H7

Some concerns were shared in relation to paragraph 3 of part 3, as some Members felt that this part of the policy encouraged self-build properties outside the limits to development.  It was believed that there was a strong argument for deleting the part of the paragraph, particularly as other Local Authorities did not include this in their local plans.  It was also noted that the recent information received regarding the exemption for self-build properties for biodiversity net gain was significant.  Officers justified this part of the policy as a safety net should there be a situation where the plots required were not met on the allocated sites.  Further discussion was had both for and against the removal of part 3 of paragraph 3 of the policy.

A proposal was formally put forward to remove part 3 of paragraph 3, therefore a separate vote would be taken along with the remaining recommendations at the conclusion of the item.

Policy IF2

A discussion was had on the wording used in part 3 of the policy which some Members felt diluted the requirement to provide community facilities.  After further discussions it was proposed that the wording be amended to:

‘Major residential/residential-led development is required to provide for or contribute to new community facilities where no facilities exist or…’

Policy IF6

Discussions were had on the long-term aspirations for the reopening of the Ivanhoe rail line and it was felt that the policy should reflect that by including the support for the provision of a station somewhere in the heart of the National Forest should passenger trains resume.

Policy EN3

Members felt that the policy should be deferred to a future meeting to allow officers and the National Forest company more time to discuss and agree any modifications felt necessary to strengthen the policy to support the aim to increase tourism in the area.

The Chair thanked the committee for its comments and advised that they had been noted.

By affirmation of the meeting

The Chair put the motion to the vote, a recorded vote being requested the voting was as detailed below

RESOLVED THAT:

The following policies from the draft Local Plan proposed policies for consultation document (January 2024) be included in the Regulation 19 plan, subject to the findings of whole plan viability assessment:

(i) Policy EC10 (East Midlands Airport: public safety zones);

(ii) Policy IF7 (Ashby Canal);

(iii) Policy EN4 (Charnwood Forest Regional Park)

By affirmation of the meeting

The Chair put the motion to the vote, a recorded vote being requested the voting was as detailed below

RESOLVED THAT:

The following policies as amended in Appendix F be included in the Regulation 19 plan,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.