Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies received.

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:

Councillors C Sewell, P Moult, P Lees, M Wyatt, M Ball, R Morris and J Simmons were lobbied on item 5 and attended the meeting with an open mind. Councillor D Bigby was lobbied on items 5 and 6 and attended the meeting with an open mind.

Councillor M Ball declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in item 6 and received legal advice to leave the room during the discussion and vote for recommendation 13.

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

There was one question, which was addressed by the Chair of the Committee. The Committee was referred to the question and response in the additional papers. A supplementary question was not asked.

 
Question from Mrs Ruth Oakley
“Firstly, I want to say I am not against housing development in Measham; however it does have to be in the right place and I believe that the proposed development off Leicester Road is not a feasible location.

In general terms it should be noted the high incidence of mining in this area, with many exhausted mineshafts making much of the land unstable, and I know that lenders do not like to lend on properties in close proximity to old mine shafts, which could lead to difficulty selling the properties.

More specifically, the increase in traffic on Leicester Road would cause even more congestion issues due to parked cars that already reduce the flow to a single lane along Leicester Road. This could also cause more of the parked cars to get damaged. I personally know of two cars that were parked on this road getting hit in the last 6 months.

With these existing issues, how can we justify developing in this area, making worse an already difficult situation?”

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee 

“The proposed housing allocation is identified in the adopted Local Plan as a reserve housing site in the event that the site at west of High Street Measham (Measham Waterside) cannot be developed due to the impact of the route of HS2. Therefore, the Council has already accepted the principle of development.

The site is also the subject of an outstanding outline planning application for up to 300 dwellings (18/00498/OUTM). In response to consultation on the application the Coal Authority have advised that whilst the coal mining legacy poses a risk to the proposed development there is “no objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of a condition or conditions” to secure amongst other matter a scheme of intrusive investigations.

Draft policy En6 of the Local Plan requires that in Coal Authority Development High Risk Areas that applications be accompanied by detailed site investigations and provide appropriate mitigation, which addresses   the concerns above.

In terms of highway matters, the County Council as the Highway Authority have advised that “the residual cumulative impacts of development can be mitigated and are not considered severe in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (NPPF), subject to the Conditions and Contributions”.

On the basis of these responses officers consider that there is no reason as to why the site at Ashby Road/Leicester Road Measham should not be allocated for development.”

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 29 January 2025

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 29 January 2025.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 29 January 2025 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

MOTION

I hereby move that C76 Meadow Lane be reinstated into the local plan. This motion is based upon the recommendation that was given by the planning officers and the thorough site assessment methodology that was provided by independent consultants.

CASE OF SITE ASSESSMENT C76 MEADOW LANE

In the case of site C76 - Meadow Lane, the assessment by officers noted that the site records one of the best scores in the Coalville Urban Area with, good access to services and facilities, and, after careful consideration, they reached a conclusion, that the site was placed first in the hierarchy for housing development in the area.

GUIDELINES AND OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS

The Guide to Probity in Planning for Councillors and Officers, suggest that where advice and recommendation for acceptance are given by officers - then generally these recommendations should be followed. Where councillors decide to overturn the advice, then the decision and reasons need to be explained and documented.

APPEAL RISKS AND COSTS

It is important to recognize that non-inclusion in the local plan may result in an appeal to the planning inspectorate with the appeal being based on national and local planning policy guidance and in this instance, it is particularly relevant given that the officers have already concluded that the site meets the criteria. 

A rejection increases the likelihood of the council losing the appeal, potentially, this could leave the Council in the position that the new local plan submission could be rejected, potentially leaving North West Leicestershire open to widespread development.

CONCLUSION 

Given that a strong recommendation was given by the planning officers, I strongly urge that we consider the matter of C76 Meadow Lane and that it be included in our Regulation 19 submission. This is particularly important especially given the risks associated with a rejection. It is important that proper consideration has been given and that we are certain that we have attained the best outcome for the entire community within the District.

At the Council meeting of 20 February 2025, a motion was submitted in relation to the land at Meadow Lane, calling for it to be reinstated into the Local Plan. In accordance with Rule 12.9 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Chair of the Council determined that it should be automatically referred back to the Local Plan Committee for consideration at this meeting.
The motion was presented and moved by Councillor S Lambeth and seconded by Councillor P Moult at the Council meeting. Councillor P Moult reserved his right to speak during this item.

A discussion ensued between Councillors, speaking for and against the motion. In opposition, concerns were raised around environment protection, flooding risks, congestion, safety for pedestrians, local service pressures and protection of agricultural land. It was emphasised that the pressure on local services and its impact on the local community should come first.

In support, concerns about the importance of providing fair allocations across the district, the need for allocations due to sites safeguarded for the HS2 project, the likelihood of the site being allocated by external inspectors due to its sustainability, and the risk of the Local Plan not being ready in time or rejected. Some comments addressed the concerns about inclusion of the site. Public rights of way would be resolved at the planning stage and the site was found to have a low risk of flooding. It was added that in an assessment undertaken by an independent consultant working for the Council, the site scored highly. The importance of probity was emphasised, as the site was originally recommended by officers to be included in the draft  Local Plan.

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

The motion was put to vote and LOST.

RESOLVED THAT:

C76 Meadow Lane not be reinstated into the Local Plan.

The report of the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager

The report was presented by the Principal Planning Policy Officer and the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager. During the presentation, a Councillor requested an explanation of regulations 18 and 19 for members of the public to understand.

The meeting was adjourned at 7pm and resumed at 7.11pm

A discussion about Key Service Centres between Councillors and the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager ensued. A member sought clarification due to concerns about changes to school plans in Ashby Town. This was addressed by the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager, who informed the Committee that the Regulation 19 plan will address all requirements as they stand at that point in time. It was suggested that this would be further discussed at a later time at a future meeting of the Committee.

Concerns were raised about the Plan not meeting its submission date and the impact upon the present and future Council. The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager advised that if the Committee made decisions at this meeting, the Plan had a good chance at being able to be submitted on time. Transport modelling was acknowledged to be the biggest risk to submission due to the time required to resolve. If the plan was not submitted by the government deadline of December  2026, then the Council would not have an up to date plan and the district could be without a 5-year housing land supply, resulting in development proposals becoming difficult to resist.

The discussion moved to Local Service Centres, with a Councillor highlighting that the Plan’s proposals for development in Measham were met with opposition by many residents. They expressed concerns for their residents including traffic risks, transport planning, sink holes, the impact upon local services and the changes made to house allocations from Option 7b, referred to in the report. It was explained that distribution changes were made, compared to Option 7b due to the Plan period extending, leading to an increase in housing requirements but also because the amount of development anticipated from Isley Woodhouse in the plan period was less than previously expected.. A request for additional monies from a Councillor to improve on local services was added.

.

The discussion transitioned to Sustainable Villages. A Councillor contributed their support of the allocated land in Oakthorpe being used to support sewage problems from heavy rain in developing areas.

Before voting, Councillors requested clarification on moving amendments to the recommendations and the order of discussion. Following this, Councillors raised further concerns about recommendations being voted against. The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager asserted that the Plan would not meet its deadline should recommendations not be approved, that the work to reallocate housing distributions would require further consultations and this would further delay the lengthy transport modelling work. In addition to this, Officers could not provide a Plan B until they knew what was being agreed.

Members contributed that as Coalville did not have more land to build, allocations were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.