Agenda and draft minutes

Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Remote meeting using Microsoft Teams

Contact: Democratic Services  01530 454529

Media

Items
No. Item

14.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

There were no apologies.

 

15.

Declaration of Interests

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.

Minutes:

In accordance with the Code of Conduct, Members declared the following interests:

 

Councillor D Harrison declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 5 - Planning for the Future White Paper - Response to Consultation, as a member of Leicestershire County Council, through which he had taken part in discussions about the paper.

 

 

16.

Public Question and Answer Session

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

 

Minutes:

There were no questions received.

 

17.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 299 KB

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 24 September 2020

Minutes:

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 24 September 2020.

 

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

 

RESOLVED THAT:

 

The minutes of the meeting held on the 24 September 2020 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

 

 

18.

Planning for the Future White Paper - Response to Consultation pdf icon PDF 578 KB

Report of the Head of Planning and Infrastructure

Minutes:

The Planning Policy Team Manager presented the report to members. He presented each of the three pillars set out in the consultation document one by one taking questions after each one.

 

Pillar 1: Planning for development

 

The Planning Policy Team Manager advised that a member [ML1] had raised a question prior to the meeting about the response to question 5, in relation to areas designated as one of three categories. The member had raised concerns about the wording of the second paragraph and after discussions, officers agreed that a slight change to the wording was required. Therefore it was proposed that an amendment be made so that the paragraph  reads:-

 

“Such an approach also does not provide sufficient flexibility to deal with changing circumstances. For example, if an area is identified as being Protected but a major proposal arises for the creation of a significant number of new and well paid jobs as a result of inwards investment, and the Council representing the local community wished to support it, then such a proposal could not be supported. The wording at page 29 of the White Paper suggests some development might be permissible in Protected areas. If this is what is intended, how is this different to the current approach? “

 

The member in question thanked Mr Nelson for the slight change of wording, even though in his opinion it was not 100% satisfactory, he was happy to support the proposed responses. The member raised concerns about the the amount of flexibility suggested within the White Paper in respect of Protected areas. He felt that the authority should not find itself back in the situation that it had found itself in with the current Local Plan where there were too many caveats in relation to the protection of the countryside.

 

The Planning Policy Team Manager understood  these concerns and highlighted that page 29 of the White Paper seemed to suggest that some development would still be permissible, although further clarity was required from Government.

 

Thanks were conveyed to Mr Nelson for addressing the concerns that had been received and for the excellent responses that had been provided to the 25 questions. He accepted that planning legislation needed updating but noted that there was countrywide concern over the White Paper. He felt that the paper put the developer first and hoped that the final consideration of the changes did not get put back. He hoped that following all the hard work of the officers, Cabinet would support the response to be submitted to Whitehall and that Whitehall would take  note of the responses and work across the political parties to develop a planning act fit for the 21st Century.

 

A member noted that there was no inclusion in the paper about nature accessible green spaces in the new proposed Growth or Renewal areas and that wildlife was the foundation of nature. It was further  noted that the paper sought to abolish the legal duty of care.  The member queried, how safe  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

19.

Potential Strategic Sites Infrastructure Study pdf icon PDF 265 KB

Report of the Head of Planning and Infrastructure

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman advised that he had received a request to speak from Councillor M Hay and invited him to address the committee.

 

Councillor M Hay addressed the committee advising that his ward covered one of the proposed development sites. He praised officers for the report and was impressed with the level of detail that had gone into the work, especially around infrastructure, which he felt was a lynchpin for the style of development addressed in the report. He acknowledged that more housing was needed and the infrastructure requirements to support it, but urged officers to take into consideration the quality of life for both the new and existing residents within the area. He highlighted that any new development in the north of the district had to work, as if not it would have a knock- on effect on  the existing amenities and traffic in the Castle Donington Wards. He added that it had to be done correctly not only for residents now, but those in the future.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor M Hay for his comments and asked him to put them in writing to the officers so that they were able to provide responses.

 

The Planning Policy Team Manager presented the report to members.

 

It was noted that some members  supported a new settlement in principal but felt that it should be a new settlement, not a settlement bolted on to an existing community. It was considered  that lessons needed to be learnt in relation to the lack of concern from the developers in relation to the Grange Road sites over the impact to  existing residents of Hugglescote’s quality of life from the bolt on development. It was requested that the terminology ‘quality of life’ be included in responses and ensured that the Council learns from these experiences.

 

One member  felt that the main issues that needed to be taken into account were the experiences and problems that had arisen within the Hugglescote ward in relation to the South East Coalville developments, and that infrastructure needed to be put  inbefore development commenced. It was  asked whether the flightpath of aircraft going over the sites listed was considered when the study was carried out?

 

The Planning Policy Team Manager advised that it was looked at and the view was that these matters would be dealt with through development management systems or local plan policies. Therefore, at that stage, air and noise issues would not prohibit development.

 

Members were pleased that officers were carrying out the work and acknowledged that self-contained new settlements would be needed rather than bolting on to existing communities, without the necessary infrastructure first being in place. It was  asked if officers could advise why the inspector had turned down the sites in Essex and whether the work already undertaken by the council had given them confidence that the authority would not face the outcome as that in Essex. Reference was made to the junction close to site D where it was felt that the infrastructure could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Councillor M B Wyatt left the meeting at 6.45pm

Councillor T Saffell left the meeting at 7.07pm.