Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor S Lambeth.

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:

All members except Councillor A Barker declared they had been lobbied without influence on all items on the agenda but had come to the meeting with an open mind.

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

The Chair introduced the item by outlining the proceedings: due to time constraints and for efficiency purposes, each question and response would not be read out. Instead, each questioner was given the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, for which the maximum amount of time was adjusted to not exceed two minutes.

There were 11 public questions received.

Question from Mr T Legrys

‘The hedgehog is listed as a Species of Principal Importance under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. It is also now classified as Vulnerable to Extinction. This Council has a duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity and is required to ensure new developments do not fragment wildlife habitats. Will the Local Plan Committee commit to developing a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), in line with the successful East Cambridgeshire Hedgehog Recovery Design Guidance SPD, to make the inclusion of 13cm x 13cm Hedgehog Highways a mandatory planning condition for all new residential developments in North West Leicestershire?’

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee

‘The preparation of a Supplementary Planning Document would require time and resources which are already stretched in order to meet the challenging deadline for getting plan submitted for Examination.

Draft policy En1 (Nature Conservation/Biodiversity net gain) of the emerging Local Plan addresses the need to ensure that new development secures a net gain in biodiversity, with the priority being for on-site provision. This provides a suitable policy hook for considering future developments.’

In response to a supplementary question, it was agreed by the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager that a line could be amended in Draft Policy En1 to include ‘species of principal importance’.

Question from Mr M Elton

‘At the last meeting in September, I asked if you were aware that a potential GIN mine has been identified, by a specialist, on C77. I was mistaken and this is actually situated within C47. As you are no doubt aware, GIN mines were created in the 17th century where shallow coal seams are common. This area has very deep compressions with water constantly seeping through which suggests this could have Subsidence issues. A similar Heritage site exists and is open to the public at Hough Windmill in Swannington.

Given the area's historical association with mining activity, there is credible concern that the site may lie above or adjacent to a former gin mine. These vertical shafts, often poorly documented and inadequately capped, pose significant risks to ground stability, public safety, and long-term structural integrity.

In order to develop that site:

·       A Coal Mining Risk Assessment (CMRA) would need to be conducted for site C47, which includes specific investigation into the presence of gin mines or shallow workings:

·       Contingency measures would need to be put in place should evidence of a gin mine be discovered during pre-development surveys:

·       The Council would also need to consider how the potential presence of a gin mine aligns with its duty to ensure safe, sustainable development under national planning policy frameworks.

If it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 24 September 2025.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 24 September 2025.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 24 September 2025 be approved and signed by the Chair as an accurate record of proceedings.

Motion

Following the consideration of a petition at Council on 4 November, the following motion was moved by Councillor L Windram and seconded by Councillor T Gillard:

The Local Plan Committee considers the petition and agrees to remove the land off Torrington Avenue, Whitwick, site reference C19a to build 242 houses from the draft local plan.

Petition

Petition as considered by Council on 4 November:

Background

We emphatically oppose the proposal to build 242 houses on the land off Torrington Avenue and Hall Lane – Site Reference C19a. Our reasons are:

Environmental Impact: It threatens our green spaces, natural habitats, and biodiversity. Destruction of trees and open land will negatively affect air quality and wildlife. A negative impact on our water drainage and sewage systems.

Overcrowding and Infrastructure Strain: Increased traffic causing congestion. Adding a link road to meet with the site C19a from the proposed site C19b (700 Item Pages houses) off Stephenson Way site 19b would further exacerbate traffic congestion. More pressure on already overburdened services, especially healthcare.

Loss of Community Character: Development would erode the separation between Whitwick and Coalville. Whitwick risks losing its identity as a distinct village. It diminishes the historical and cultural integrity of the area.

Noise and Construction Disruption: Long-term noise, dust, and disruption during construction. Ongoing noise pollution from increased traffic, affecting health and quality of life (stress, sleep issues).

Inappropriate Location: The area lacks the infrastructure to support such large-scale development. Housing would be better situated near industrial units and existing road networks that can accommodate an increase in traffic.

Action petitioned for

We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to act now to remove the land at Torrington Avenue, Whitwick - Site Reference – C19a – the build of 242 houses from the Draft Local Plan.

Motion

Following the consideration of a petition at Council on 4 November, the following motion was moved by Councillor L Windram and seconded by Councillor T Gillard:

The Local Plan Committee considers the petition and agrees to remove the land off Torrington Avenue, Whitwick, site reference C19a, to build 242 houses from the Draft Local Plan.

A discussion was had during which members put forward arguments both for and against the petition. Members emphasised the importance of meeting the Local Plan deadlines imposed by the Government and considered the consequences of withdrawing sites at this stage which could lead to ‘developer anarchy’. It was also noted that removing site C19a from the Local Plan would require finding alternative sites and cause delays.

Some members made comments in support of the petition, highlighting the impact that development on site C19a would have on local residents and concern was expressed about ongoing transport modelling work.

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

The motion was LOST.

[recorded vote to be inserted here]

The report of the Principal Planning Policy Officer.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report.

In response to a question from members relating to site apportionment in North West Leicestershire, the Principal Planning Policy Officer commented that, in the event the apportionment of 44% was not met, conversations would be had with other authorities to find a resolution to the shortfall as part of the Local Plan examination. It was added by the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager that there was a limited number of available sites, and that significant provisions were underway to ensure that as much of the requirement would be met as possible.

Members commented that site EMP97 did not go through a Regulation 18 consultation and therefore did not get full scrutiny from local residents, highlighting the large size of the site and struggling traffic in the area.

Members expressed concern that the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan could be finalised without further consultation on a few sites, and it was asked whether the matter of consultation could be discussed at the next meeting. The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager advised that, due to Local Plan time limitations and as the next meeting was scheduled for January, it would be better to raise any concerns with the report during this meeting.

A discussion was had about site EMP97. Members raised concerns about the adequacy of transport modelling work, especially for Junction 24 of the M1 and Junction 11 of the M42, and the need for infrastructure upgrades. It was stated that Junctions 13 and 14 on the M42 were already suffering from over-capacity, and that additional allocations could cause this to escalate.

The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager advised that the transport modelling work had been revisited to incorporate updated assumptions as set out in the report. It was added that previous estimates of the future need for strategic distribution for North West Leicestershire were significantly lower (requiring a step back in the modelling process), and that the revised modelling will take into account all known developments across the wider area but will exclude proposals such as the Norton Juxta new settlement recently proposed in the Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan (Reg 18) , as these are not sufficiently advanced.

The Principal Planning Policy Officer recommended that as many sites as possible should be identified as part of the Local Plan to minimise a shortfall, and that taking site EMP97 out at this stage would undermine the integrity of the Local Plan. It was added that the decisions made at this meeting were subject to transport modelling work.

It was announced by the Chair that, due to the points raised during discussion, recommendations 4 and 5 would be moved separately.

Recommendation 4 was moved by Councillor R Morris, seconded by Councillor M Ball and

RESOLVED THAT:

4)     The inclusion of land south of Kegworth Bypass (EMP97) as a strategic warehousing site in the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan, be agreed in principle.

Recommendation 5 was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

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

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

A discussion was had during which several questions of clarity were addressed by the planning policy officers. Members commented that there was a disconnect regarding Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council’s Local Plan, and that it lacked sufficient information.

It was moved by Councillor D Bigby, seconded by Councillor M Ball and

RESOLVED THAT:

1)     The Council thanks Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council for consulting this Council on the Regulation 18 Local Plan.

2)     The Council supports the proposed housing requirement of 743 dwellings each year

The Council objects to the Plan’s proposal for a new settlement at Norton Juxta Twycross in view of the lack of demonstrable evidence in respect of the impact upon this district, including transport, infrastructure and landscape.

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

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

During discussion, members were surprised to hear of the proposal to include the area of separation in the Neighbourhood Plan. It was noted by the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager that it would be up to independent examiners to decide on site allocations within Long Whatton and Diseworth.

In accordance with recommendations 2, 3 and 4, members noted the report.

Recommendation 1 was moved by Councillor R Morris, seconded by Councillor J Legrys and

RESOLVED THAT:

The Local Plan Committee agrees the proposed response to the submission draft of the Long Whatton and Diseworth Neighbourhood Plan as set out in Appendix A.

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

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

During discussion, members expressed the importance of maintaining an area of separation in the Local Plan to preserve the character of the village and protect the surrounding countryside. Members also highlighted the potential an area of separation has to enforce Policy S2 – Settlement Hierarchy, and Policy S3 – Strategic Policy, in the Local Plan – concerns were raised over the robustness of these policies. It was added that establishing an area of separation in writing would be more effective in enforcing protection.

A few members raised doubts over whether establishing an area of separation was necessary due to the protection offered by policies S2 and S3 in the Local Plan.

A motion was put forward by Councillor P Moult for an area of separation to not be included in the Local Plan. It was seconded by Councillor A Barker.

The motion was LOST.

The Legal Advisor advised the Committee to put forward an alternative motion.

Councillor R Morris moved that an area of separation at Diseworth be identified as part of the Local Plan on the grounds that it would better preserve the surrounding countryside and the character of the village. It was seconded by Councillor J Legrys and

RESOLVED THAT:

An area of separation at Diseworth be identified as part of the Local Plan to better protect the surrounding countryside and preserve the character of the village.

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

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

A discussion was had during which members suggested exploring alternative places for housing allocations such as Measham so that fewer controversial sites would be put forward to the Committee. They also noted that restrictions on build-out rates could result in fewer houses being built.

In response, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager expressed concern over what this would mean for ongoing transport modelling work, and that referring new sites to Leicestershire County Council at this stage would delay the Local Plan.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

Subject to the outcome of further work including transport modelling, viability assessment and infrastructure requirements, the Local Plan Committee agrees that:

1)     The proposed policy for the Coalville urban area strategic development area be as set out at Appendix A of the report.

2)     Land south of Ashby Road, Kegworth (K12) be allocated for around 140 dwellings in the Regulation 19 Local Plan subject to not receiving any adverse legal advice as outlined at paragraphs 4.6 and 4.7 of the report.

3)     Land west of Redburrow Lane, Packington (P7) is allocated for around 30 dwellings in the Regulation 19 Local Plan.

4)     Housing allocation land south of Normanton Road, Packington (P4) includes an additional policy requirement to facilitate vehicular access to P7.

Land at Spring Lane and rear of 55 Normanton Road, Packington (P5 & P8) is not allocated in the Regulation 19 Local Plan.

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

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

Members had a discussion during which several questions of clarity were addressed by the planning policy officers, and it was commented that paragraph 4.9 of Policy AP7 should be altered to make it clearer.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

2)     That the Local Plan Committee agrees to Policy AP4 (Reducing Carbon Emissions) as amended in Appendix B for inclusion in the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan, subject to the findings of the whole plan viability assessment, subject to the findings of the whole plan viability assessment.

That the Local Plan Committee agrees Policy AP7 (Flood Risk) as amended in Appendix B for inclusion in the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan, subject to the findings of the whole plan viability assessment.