Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors S Lambeth and R Morris.

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.

In accordance with the Code of Conduct, Members declared the following interests:

Councillor K Merrie declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in item 6 and received legal advice to leave the room during the discussion and vote for recommendations 2 and 3.

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

There were no questions received.

Question from Mr M Elton
‘C77 is owned by World Habitat formally known as East Midlands Housing so it is likely that any building is going to be social or affordable housing.  Therefore it will be public money, funded by government grants, which will be used to build on this site.  This steep valley has an underground stream, surface coal seams and underground gas.  We have been advised by an ex- developer that this site will be extremely expensive to develop.  Do the Local Plan Committee, therefore feel that this would be a good use of public money to develop this site?’

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee
‘A decision as to whether or not it is appropriate to undertake development at site C77 having regard to costs alone is for East Midlands Housing as the prospective developer to determine, it is not for the Council to judge if it represents a good use of public money. The Local Plan is concerned with determining, from a planning perspective, whether it is appropriate for sites to be developed. In this instance it is considered that site C77 is appropriate.’

In response to a supplementary question, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager informed that questioner that the Council was not aware of a survey that took place on the C77 site but would seek more information.

Question from Mr C Taylor
‘Full council voted 35 to 1 for the petition to remove WWV from the plan being referred to LPC, because WWV site doesn’t meet any of the plan objectives, isn’t in line with proposed planning reforms and fails to treat WWV fairly in terms of creating an area of separation.  Councillor Legrys proposed that no more sites should be removed which were recommended by Officers.  Does this mean that no sites will removed from the plan until the appeal stage, whether or not they are a viable?’

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee
‘The decision as to whether any site should be excluded (or included) in the final Local Plan will, in the first instance, be for members of the Local Plan Committee to decide having regard to evidence, including, not limited to, the ongoing transport modelling and the viability assessment. The final decision as to the content of the Local Plan will rest with a meeting of the full Council.’

In response to a supplementary question, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager explained that the West Whitwick valley remained in the Local Plan because Officers considered it acceptable but ultimately the acceptability of sites was a decision for the Committee and Council to make. 

Question from Mr G Baker
‘I understand that HS2 safeguarding has now been lifted, a planning application for more than 4 ½ thousand properties at Isley Walton and 300 properties at Broomleys have been submitted and that part of the proposed Twycross new development will extend onto an area of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 11 June 2025

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 11 June 2025.

It was moved by Councillor J Legrys, seconded by Councillor M Ball and

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 June 2025 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

The report of the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager and Principal Planning Policy Officer

Before the presentation of item 5, the Chair of the Local Plan Committee explained the structure of the presentations and discussions to the Committee.

The report was presented by the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager and the Principal Planning Policy Officer.

Sections 1 – 3
The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager explained to the Committee that the actual number of dwellings required may change based on updated government modelling. If the number decreases, some sites may be removed; if it increases, new sites may need to be added. Unmet housing needs from Leicester City and possibly Oadby and Wigston would also influence final numbers.

It was appreciated by a member of the Committee, that the HS2 safeguarded had been removed. In response to their enquiry about the Norton Juxta Twycross development, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager explained that the majority of this proposal was located within Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council area. Decisions made for this site relied on the Borough Council, who were less advanced in their Local Plan process which could mean potential delays in this Council’s Plan. Updates would be provided to the Committee.

It was requested by a member that the Committee have further discussions about proposals that involved Nortion Juxta Twycross, Appleby and employment at Junction 11.

Officers were congratulated for their ‘meticulous’ responses to the public consultation process.

Section 4
A member of the Committee raised concerns, on behalf of residents of Rushey Close, about an allocated site South of Burton Road. It was reported that these residents were not officially informed during the consultation of this site. It was explained that the consultation process involved Parish and Town Councils being notified with the expectation to help disseminate information; and those signed up to the consultation database, or had previously made representations, were contacted. It was added that writing to every resident was not feasible due to cost and time constraints. Officers were unsure why residents of this site were unaware as other sites across the district were notified. Any comments received would be reviewed thoroughly and if changes to the plan was warranted, recommendations would be made accordingly.

Section 5

A discussion followed. The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Mangers informed Members, that whilst the Council were unable to compel developers to work together, there was some reassurance that 3 of the developers had met. Upcoming transport modelling evidence may require sensible planning and encourage collaboration between developers, but it was up to them to do so.

Members were updated on an active petition in relation to Torrington Avenue (recommendation 2). Actions taken, because of the petition, depended on the number of signatures.

In response to a question, it was explained that a parcel of undeveloped land would be preserved by a legal agreement, but future changes could not be ruled out.

Concerns were raised about the West Whitwick land. It was explained that If the land was included in the Regulation 19 plan, objections  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The report of the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager and Principal Planning Policy Officer

The report was presented by the Principal Planning Officer.

A discussion followed. The Principal Planning Officer explained to the Committee that the transport modelling being undertaken to support the Local Plan would consider relevant proposals in neighbouring authorities that relate to areas with allocated land in the Plan.

A member asked whether protection nearby to a particular site already in development could be put in place to maintain woodlands and the ‘unique’ village of Battram. The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager agreed to look further into this and return to the Committee with any further actions.

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

The motion was put to vote and CARRIED. Recorded votes to follow

RESOLVED THAT:

THAT LOCAL PLAN COMMITTEE:

(1) AGREES NOT TO INCLUDE LAND EAST OF MIDLAND ROAD ELLISTOWN (EMP24 ORIGINAL AREA AND EMP24 REDUCED AREA) AS AN ALLOCATION IN THE REGULATION 19 VERSION OF THE LOCAL PLAN.

(2) SUBJECT TO THE OUTCOME OF FURTHER WORK INCLUDING TRANSPORT MODELLING, VIABILITY ASSESSMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS, AGREES THAT LAND BETWEEN ELLISTOWN TERRACE ROAD AND WOOD ROAD, ELLISTOWN (EMP98) IN APPENDIX D BE PROPOSED TO BE ALLOCATED IN THE REGULATION 19 VERSION OF THE LOCAL PLAN.

(3) AGREES THE POLICIES MAP EXTRACT FOR MONEY HILL IN APPENDIX E FOR INCLUSION IN THE REGULATION

Councillor K Merrie left the meeting at 8.08pm.