Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor P Lees.

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 R Blunt declared a registerable, pecuniary interest, in respect of item 6; he would leave the room for the duration of the item.

In respect of various sites as discussed in items 5 and 6 on the agenda, the following Members declared that they had been lobbied without influence and had come to the meeting with an open mind:

Councillors M Ball, J Legrys, R Morris, P Moult, C Sewell, JG Simmons, and M Wyatt.

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

The Chair read out a statement, stressing that the Local Plan drafting process was evidence led, and though some of the decisions to be made at the meeting could be controversial or emotive, she called for a civil and amicable debate.

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 Mr J Perry:

“If the Broad Location, C 47/C 81 etc, remains in the Local Plan I am assuming considerations re: access issues (roads) have already been resolved. Based on the anticipated number of houses to be built there may be in excess of 1,000 additional vehicles on those roads. This would render the use of Church Lane as the sole exit impractical & unrealistic.

In my assessment, to satisfy adequate access requirements, the construction of a major road through C48 will be required. This road would then have to cross Church Lane into any planned development.

My question: if this is the case will that road be contained within the proposed development C 47/ C 81.”

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee:

“The County Highway Authority in their response to the draft Local Plan advised that access to this site should be considered in conjunction with site C48 off Thornborough Road. The site promoter is currently looking at this, but the exact details have yet to be determined but it would suggest that there would be some possible form of connection between the two sites across Church Lane.”

The supplementary question asked if in the future the agreed access arrangements  for the  broad location at West Whitwick were amended, would this be subject to further public consultation.

The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager advised that the matter of access at the West Whitwick sites would be considered at that point if necessary, but there would be a second, more bespoke round of consultation as part of the wider Local Plan drafting process anyway.

Question from Mr P Philips:

“Officers and Members will now be well aware of a growing feeling among the community that public consultation was inadequate in the case of West Whitwick Valley being included for housing development in the proposed Local Plan.  This is evidenced by the fact that the majority of those most affected by this inclusion had no knowledge of either the proposal or the consultation until after the consultation closing date.  It is noted that in the past consultations have been sent to individual households for far less significant development proposals.  In the interest of fairness, transparency and reasonableness, all of which the Council is clearly signed up to delivering, is it agreed that a second public consultation is appropriate in this case, ensuring those most effected are properly and clearly notified”

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee:

“In preparing a Local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 13 November 2024

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 13 November 2024.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 November 2024 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

Report of the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager

The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager presented the report. Additionally, with reference to the additional papers, he noted that references to Councillor R Sutton as set out in the consultation responses, had in fact been joint responses from Councillor R Sutton, N Rushton, and C Sewell, as well as various parish councillors and a local campaign group.

The Chair advised that each recommendation would be voted on separately.

A Member suggested deferring the considerations of sites relating to the Coalville urban area until 29 January, so the allocation of sites could be considered in the totality.

A motion to defer consideration of Officer recommendations ii-xiii was moved by Councillor J Legrys and seconded by Councillor P Moult.

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

The motion was lost.

Members discussed the proposed new settlement at Isley Woodhouse. Some were concerned about the prospect of delaying the start of development at the Isley Woodhouse development until 2033, and the consequent need to allocate an additional 650 houses throughout the rest of the district. Other Members noted the existing traffic congestion in the area and the need to mitigate this and thus supported the proposed delay.

The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager advised that there was significant uncertainty around transport modelling at the location, which could significantly hinder the speed of development. By reducing the emphasis on the new settlement in the first five years of the Plan, the postponement should also significantly reduce the risk of the draft Local Plan not being found sound at Examination stage.

A motion to amend the recommendation, so that 2250 houses were built at Isley Woodhouse by 2042, 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.

The motion was lost.

The Officer recommendation (i) was moved by Councillor R Morris and seconded by Councillor M Wyatt.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

Land south of the A453 and East Midlands Airport be allocated as a new settlement for about 4,250 dwellings with 1,950 dwellings up to 2042.

The Officer recommendation (ii) was moved by Councillor M Ball and seconded by Councillor R Morris.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

Land at Church View, Grange Road, Hugglescote (C61) and 186, 188 and 190 London Road, Coalville (C83) be not allocated in the Regulation 19 version of the Plan for the reasons set out in section 7 of this report.

The Officer recommendation (iii) was moved by Councillor R Blunt and seconded by Councillor R Morris.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

Land  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Report of the Principal Planning Officer

The Principal Planning Policy Officer presented the report.

A Member was concerned about the extensive proliferation of warehouses, and the resulting environmental and aesthetic impacts, in the northern areas of the district such as Kegworth and the surrounding villages.

The Principal Planning Policy Officer advised that, although she appreciated the concerns, that area of the district had particularly excellent transport links which made it attractive to businesses; and the draft Local Plan was required to demonstrate its viability by allocating the most attractive prospective employment sites.

In response to a Member, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager advised that the figure for warehousing was a working figure, which reflected that the northern areas of the district were very attractive to potential employers. He also clarified that any new prospective employment sites would go out to a targeted consultation, after the Committee meeting on 29 January 2025.

A motion to suspend Standing Order 9.1 was moved by Councillor D Bigby, seconded by Councillor J Legrys, and

RESOLVED THAT:

The meeting be extended, by no more than an additional thirty minutes.

In response to a Member, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager advised that voting for a site for modelling purposes would not prejudice any planning applications at the location.

The Officer’s recommendations (i)-(v) were moved by Councillor JG Simmons and seconded by Councillor R Morris.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

(i)             Subject to the outcome of further work including transport modelling viability assessment and infrastructure requirements, that the general needs employment sites and locations in table 4 be proposed to be allocated in the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan.

(ii)            Subject to the outcome of further work including transport modelling, viability assessment and infrastructure requirements and public consultation, that the general needs employment sites in table 5 be proposed to be allocated in the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan.

(iii)          That the proposed policy wording changes included in appendix A be incorporated in the Regulation 19 Version Local Plan.

(iv)          The broad approach to the Freeport described in paragraph 4.8 be approved.

(v)           The strategic warehousing sites and locations in table 7 for the purposes of transport modelling be approved.