Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor D Bigby

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.

Councillor JG Simmons declared that she had been lobbied with respect to the West Whitwick site, but came to the meeting with an open mind.

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

There were four questions asked which set out below together with the responses. Each member of the public who asked a question was invited by the Chair to ask one supplementary question which is also set out together with the response.

Question from Ms G Baker

‘For clarity, I am referring to the proposal to build 500 properties on the site you have called West Whitwick, within your draft Strategy Plan.

The committee sets out 11 Plan Objectives, No 7 is to mitigate for climate change and vulnerability for flooding.  With reference to the Council’s Flood Risk Strategy AP7 point 5.6 states that ‘developers’ should not place residents at increased risk of flooding. The site is on productive farmland, which is susceptible to flooding close to Church Lane, New Swannington and part of the land drains down a steep valley onto Talbot Lane.  There are currently a number of areas of wet land in the base of the valley, which attracts wildlife to the area. Following a recent short period of heavy rainfall, the bottom of Talbot Lane was flooded and an increase in water levels is noticeable, even when the landowner has just legitimately maintained their land drainage.  It is therefore difficult to envisage how it is possible to build 500 houses on that site, without substantially increasing the risk of flooding in the area.

If you do go ahead and allow houses to be built in a valley where drainage is already a problem and there are limited options for draining that away effectively from the bottom of the valley on Talbot Lane.  What can the Council do to ensure that residents don’t suffer the same or worse drainage and infestations problems which happened recently in Donnington le Heath?’

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee

‘Consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework, proposed draft Local Plan policy AP7 seeks to direct development to areas at least risk of flooding. The land to the west of Whitwick is located within Flood Zone 1, which is the lowest risk area for flooding. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the Local Plan confirms that the site satisfies the Sequential Test as required by national policy.

The draft policy for the site includes a requirement for the incorporation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) as part of any future development of the site. SuDS schemes are designed to mimic natural drainage regimes so as to reduce surface water flooding.  This is done by slowing the rate of run-off together with areas for holding water on site and releasing it at a rate equivalent to a greenfield site.

Neither the Environment Agency nor the Lead Local Flood Authority (Leicestershire County Council) have raised an objection.’

For her supplementary question, Ms Baker suggested that there were sites within the Whitwick area which had not been selected and which were less prone to flooding according to the Council’s 2016 strategic flood risk assessment and it was unclear to her, when  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 26 September 2024

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 26 September 2024.

It was moved by Councillor J Legrys, seconded by Councillor P Lees and

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 September 2024 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

Report of the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager

The Chair noted two errors contained within the report, which had been corrected in the additional papers which she referred to.

The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager presented the first part of the report.

Members discussed extending the plan period and the implications of doing so. They were broadly supportive, as doing so would give the Council additional flexibility and latitude, though it was noted that it would increase the number of sites which would need to be allocated for housing and employment.

The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager presented the second part of the report.

An extensive debate was had about increasing the required annual number of dwellings. One group of Members suggested that they were opposed to the increase as the current figure of 686 had been derived from known requirements and there was no uncertainty around that figure at this moment. Alternatively, some Members felt that proactively increasing the requirement in expectation of possible future increases in the housing requirement would be prudent, as these prospective changes would already be accommodated in the plan, which was subject to significant time pressures.

The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager advised why the proactive approach was preferable, set out the reasons for expecting a higher minimum requirement in the future and the timeline for expecting the new Statement of Common Ground with other local authorities in Leicestershire, and said that there was no reason to expect or plan for a higher figure than 727. He also clarified that the 727 figure would require the allocation of additional sites in the draft plan, and if this meant significant moderation to the draft plan was required, consideration would be given to undertaking further public consultations, though he was wary of the time pressures. The issue of consultation would be decided at the Local Plan Committee meeting on 16 December 2024.

The Legal Advisor said that this was an evolving process, and Members must keep an open mind and be led by the evidence presented to them.

The Principal Planning Policy Officer presented the final parts of the report.

Members suggested that the proposed increases seemed very large, but Officers emphasised that the proposed figures were solely for transport modelling purposes. They were trying to plan for contingencies against a tight deadline and the imperative was to keep the process moving forwards.

In response to a Member, the Head of Planning and Infrastructure advised on the Development Consent Order relating to the proposed Freeport. Development Consent Orders were a different regime to Planning Applications, the Council would be simply a consultee and the decision would be made by the Secretary of State. Potential improvements to Junction 24 of the M1 were also known to Officers, although as they were only in a very early stage, the relevant information had not been shared with Members. It was agreed that Officers would share the information with Members and impacted parish councils.

The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.