Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor N Smith.

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

There were no interests declared.

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

There were no questions received.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 27 October 2021.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 27 October 2021.

The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager advised Members suggested that a minor change be considered to the recommendation that was agreed for minute number 28 – Development Strategy and suggested that the word span be changed to cover.

It was moved by Councillor J Bridges, seconded by Councillor J Legrys and

RESOLVED THAT:

Subject to the minor change to the recommendation at minute number 20, the minutes of the meeting held on 27 October 2021 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

The Principal Planning Policy Officer presented the report to members.

The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager was asked to provide responses to two questions that had been received from Councillor N Smith. He advised that the first question was in relation to whether the Local Plan would be making any provision for truck stops and the response was that it was not something that had been looked at so far, but it was mentioned the NPPF that Local Authorities should do and it would be looked at. The second question related to the HS2 following the Government’s announcements and it was noted that HS2 were still awaiting instructions  from Government and as soon as that was known Members would be updated.

Following a request from Councillor J Legrys, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager provided members with an update on the discussions on the unmet housing, employment and strategic distribution needs. 

Councillor J Legrys expressed concerns that there was no mention on how neighbouring Local Plan authorities felt over the level of development in the north of the district and that the Council was still focussing on distribution rather than manufacturing. He felt that option 1 at para 2.19 was the right one as it would build in flexibility and that options should be put in reserve for later in the plan period.

Councillor D Bigby stated that he felt putting options forward for consultation was the right way to go but expressed concerns over the tone of the wording in the report as he felt it could unduly influence people into a particular position. He was pleased to see the options in relation to the general employment land strategy had not got any particular preference.

The Principal Planning Policy Officer advised that in terms of the presentation of the options, officers could provide pros and cons to each option that would appear more balanced.

Consideration was given to the wording of the consultation around the strategic warehousing figure, as it was felt that it would appear that the authority would be willing to take a large part of any unmet need. It was agreed that the wording emphasised that it was an option ahead of what would be agreed at the Countywide option.

Councillor A C Saffell felt that the plan should include a housing development close to the employment land, to provide housing for those who would work there.

It was felt by members that land should be allocated for industry not just warehousing.

Councillor D Bigby noted that the numbers of the paragraphs that were to be included in option 1 should read 2.19 to 2.22, not 2.18 to 2.21 as stated in the report.

Subject to the change of paragraph numbers in (i) of the recommendations, it was moved by Councillor D Bigby, seconded by Councillor J Legrys and

RESOLVED THAT:

The following be included in the next Local Plan review public consultation (regulation 18):

(i)    the options for sustaining employment land  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Report of the Head of Planning and Infrastructure.

The Principal Planning Policy Officer presented the report to members.

Councillor J Legrys expressed his disappointment that there were no comments from Cabinet on the document when they had discussed it. He sought clarity on why the document had been brought back to committee following Cabinet consideration. The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager provided members with an explanation of the decision making process that was required.

Councillor J Legrys felt that 20% affordable housing was too low for the Coalville urban area. He was pleased with the wording around contributions for both on site and off site new developments, however he noted issues around the uncertainty of HS2, employment of both the Freeport and the Development Corporation, and also Ratcliff Power Station. 

Following comments made by Councillor A C Saffell supporting the proposal to make land available for a new settlement that would provide affordable homes for those employed at the sites in the north of the district, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager reminded members of the information in relation to this which was contained in the Development Strategy report considered at the last meeting; and that land west of Belton was not considered to be appropriate in view of issues around multiple ownership and the need to demonstrate deliverability in accordance with the national planning policy framework.

It was moved by Councillor R Morris, seconded by Councillor J Hoult and

RESOLVED THAT:

The Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document attached as appendix B be adopted.

Report of Head of Planning and Infrastructure.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to members.

In response to a question from Councillor D Bigby, The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager explained the risks of Neighbourhood Plans going out of date following the review of the Local Plan.

Councillor J Legrys raised a question in relation to the identified cycling route and sought clarification on how the SNP could provide support to the potential new route, which should be included. He felt that the route need protecting as there were a number of heritage assets that were along the route. The Principal Planning Officer stated that she would incorporate some wording.

Subject to the incorporation of wording around the support to a potential new cycling route and protection of heritage assets, it was moved by Councillor J Legrys, seconded by Councillor J Hoult and

RESOLVED THAT:

i)      The suggested pre-submission (regulation 14) response to Swannington Parish Council as set out at appendix b be endorsed;

ii)     The endorsement of any further response by officers at submission (regulation 16) stage be delegated to the Strategic Director of Place, in consultation with the Portfolio Holders for Planning and Infrastructure be agreed;

iii)    It be noted that once the neighbourhood plan has been submitted the Strategic Director of Place, in consultation with the Portfolio Holders for Planning and Infrastructure will:

A)   publish the plan for a six week period and invite representations;

B)   notify consultation bodies; and

  C) appoint an independent examiner to conduct the examination of the neighbourhood plan;

(i)     It be noted that following receipt of the independent examiner’s report, the Strategic Director of Place in consultation with the Portfolio Holders for Planning and Infrastructure will determine whether the conditions have been met for the neighbourhood plan to proceed to referendum;

(v)  If the majority of those who voted in the referendum are in favour of the Swannington Neighbourhood Plan and the District Council does not consider the making of the neighbourhood plan to be incompatible with any EU or human rights obligations, then the decision whether to make the plan be delegated to the Strategic Director of Place in consultation with the Portfolio Holders for Planning and Infrastructure.

Report of the Head of Planning and Infrastructure.

The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manger presented the report to members.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he would have preferred that members were included in the discussions, as he was aware that there were concerns from Councillors at Charnwood about flooding down stream on the River Soar and the effect of the Gateway project in that area. He understood that the report was for noting purposes only and thanked officers for their work.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The Statement of Common Ground with Charnwood Borough Council be noted.