Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R Boam, J Bridges, J Hoult and M B Wyatt.

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 declarations of interest.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 26 June 2019.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 26 June 2019.

In reference to the Strategic Growth Plan, Councillor A C Saffell expressed his surprise that it was not a regular item on the agenda and asked the Chairman if it was possible to have a short discussion on the topic.  All members agreed for a short discussion at the end of the meeting.

Councillor D Bigby referred to the terms of reference of the committee in that it should meet at least every two months, and pointed out that it had been three months since the last meeting.  He expressed the importance of meeting regularly and stated that he would also be happy to meet during the summer break in August.  The comments were noted by the Chairman.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 June 2019 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Report of the Interim Head of Planning and Infrastructure

The Planning Policy Team Manager presented the report to Members.  He advised that the proposed approach to the review of the local plan was approved by Cabinet in July and was detailed within appendix b of the report.  He expressed the importance of continuing the substantive review alongside the partial review.

In response to the request for an update from Councillor Johnson, the Planning Policy Team Manager reported that a potential gypsy and traveller’s site had been identified in March 2018 but was not supported. .  Work on this would continue through the substantive review and progress reports would be brought to committee in due course.

In response to a question from Councillor V Richichi, the Planning Policy Team Manager confirmed that there was currently a 5-year housing land supply. The assessment had been prepared following discussion with individual developers/landowners. In response to a further query from Councillor V Richichi he advised that it did include some sites which had outline permission, but these were either subject to a reserved matters application of pre-application discussions with a view to a reserved matters application. The sites that were not at either of these two stages were not included in the calculations.  Councillor V Richichi asked why it was necessary to assist the City Council with their land supply when we already had more than required.  The Planning Policy Team Manager explained that national policies required that the Leicestershire authorities collectively accommodate the area’s needs; therefore, we would need to provide assistance.  He added that any unmet need from the City redirected to North West Leicestershire may not be high but at this stage, it was impossible to say.

In response to a further question regarding the authority’s assistance with the City Council’s land supply from Councillor N Smith, the Planning Policy Team Manager explained that the City Council would be required to demonstrate that they could not meet the need; therefore, officers would be examining the evidence carefully moving forward.

In response to a question from Councillor N Smith regarding gypsy and traveller sites, the Planning and Policy Team Manager stated that officers liaised with the County Council officer with responsibility for gypsies and travellers and that he communicated with the gypsy and traveller community

Councillor J Legrys felt that all the different organisations and authorities involved in strategic growth planning throughout the region were having discussions in isolation; therefore, the committee was not seeing the full picture.  He also reported that residents were complaining about planning policies being ignored when considering large planning applications and questioned why policies were drawn up in the first place.

The Chairman agreed that it would be good to receive updates of what was happening regionally with strategic growth and asked for a regular item on the agenda.  The Planning Policy Team Manager explained that it might not be possible for information at every meeting but agreed to provide regular updates.

Councillor D Bigby asked officers if they were confident that the Planning Inspector  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Report of the Interim Head of Planning and Infrastructure

The Planning Policy Team Manager presented the report to members, highlighting the study undertaken by The Landscape Partnership, which was attached at appendices B and C.  He explained that the study would form part of the Council’s evidence base to support the substantive review of the local plan. 

Councillor J Legrys fully supported the recommendations but asked how the proposed dualing of Stephenson Way would affect the plan.  The Planning Policy Team Manager commented that until details were received it was difficult to say.  Councillor J Legrys raised concerns that the Committee were agreeing a plan that could change, and the fact that the new leisure centre was not included.  He also expressed his annoyance that the ordnance survey maps still included the railway line that was not in use and formed an important part of the nature reserve.

Councillor D Bigby referred to the three proposed areas of separation as indicated in the Ashby Neighbourhood Plan, which was rejected by the Planning Inspector because it was not supported by sufficient evidence and was outside the plan area.  Therefore, he suggested that other areas of separation be considered, particularly those proposed in Ashby.  The Planning Policy Team Manager explained how areas of separation were considered and reminded members that that the area between Coalville and Whitwick was unique as it was within an otherwise built up area.

Councillor R Johnson raised concerns about his village of Hugglescote losing its identity and asked if there were plans to look at possible areas of separation in the near future.  The Planning Policy Team Manager responded that officers would look at an area if a suggestion was put forward.

Councillor D Bigby appreciated the comments from the Planning Policy Team Manager but asked if officers could look into Policy S3 to see if it was possible make any changes to protect these areas between towns and villages. The Planning Policy Team Manager advised that the policy already did this.

It was moved by Councillor J Legrys, seconded by Councillor V Richichi and

RESOLVED THAT:

a)     The outcome of the area of separation study be noted.

b)     It be noted that the area of separation study form part of the Council’s evidence base to support the Local Plan Substantive Review.

________

As agreed earlier in the meeting, an informal discussion was had regarding the Strategic Growth Plan.  Councillor A C Saffell expressed concerns about the sites identified for housing in and around Castle Donington as they were very close to the racetrack and the airport.  He also had concerns that the houses being built in the area were too expensive for the people that were working in the area.   As a result of these concerns he raised a suggestion for a new town to be created, on a site just outside of Castle Donington which could be made up of more affordable houses created by a company such as Rent Plus.  He believed this would be a suitable solution for the growing workforce in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.