Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors J Bridges, J Hoult, R Morris and A C Saffell.

Councillors A Woodman and J Clarke acted as substitutes for Councillors J Bridges and R Morris respectively.

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.

There were no interests declared.

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

There were no questions received.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2022.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2022.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2022 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Report of the Head of Planning and Infrastructure.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report, and outlined the findings of the assessment which had been prepared by external consultants. Officers clarified that the assessment did not seek to identify potential sites but to identify the future requirement and need. The definitions used by the government in Planning Policy for Travellers Sites (PPTS) were also highlighted to members.

The need for accommodation was set out and it was noted that the majority of the need would be required in the next 5 years (the “current” need). Officers outlined the Smith Case, which had recently been taken to the Court of Appeal and which found that there had been discrimination against travellers who were settled.

This prompted a member to ask whether the Government would be required to produce a new definition for travellers who have stopped travelling, however officers advised at this stage there would be no need for the Government to do so and nor was there any indication that they would.

A member enquired whether the revised Local Plan would be required to identify potential sites or if it would only indicate that the Council needed to find sites. Officers responded that there would be further investigation into whether the need could be accommodated by extending existing sites, and whilst it would be helpful to include proposed extension to existing sites in the Local Plan, identified sites may not be agreeable to the gypsy and traveller communities which they would be intended to serve. It was noted that whatever the Council would include in the Local Plan it would include e a criteria based policy to assess any sites that come forward as planning applications.

A member asked if this authority would be required to identify or supply a transit site. Officers advised that it would be unlikely for the Local Plan to fail on the basis of not identifying transit sites, however in order to be pro active the Council had already looked at potentially identifying a transit site and acknowledged that there would be a strategy needed to show that an appropriate site had been considered and sought.

Members expressed concern at the current lack of transit accommodation within the district, citing worries that should an incursion occur, there would be no suitable site for the police to move travellers on to and asked whether the Council would need to identify a transit site for inclusion in the Local Plan. Officers responded that having a transit site would strengthen the Council’s position and this could be done either by inclusion in the Local Plan or by a separate planning application, and noted that a planning application could be dealt with more quickly.

A member asked how the difference between those who had temporarily or permanently stopped travelling was ascertained and officers replied that this would be dependent on the facts of each individual case. For example should a member of the community declare they were no longer travelling they would then not meet the definition.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Report of the Head of Planning and Infrastructure.

The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager presented the report and highlighted that this would be a key part of the Local Plan which must be supported by evidence and new infrastructure.

It was noted that the authority had agreed a number of new dwellings in order to accommodate Leicester’s unmet need and that the need for infrastructure would be greater as the amount of development would be greater.

Officers informed the meeting that several new primary schools, secondary schools and additional healthcare provision would be required and that electricity supply would be a challenge.

Members suggested that things such as wildlife corridors, active cycle and walkways and bus services should be considered.

A member asked whether the Council could pre-empt the requirements on matters such as highways. Officers advised that this would be something which could be revisited following the next phase of the study. The meeting was informed that following consideration of preferred sites, the authority would commission transport modelling.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The findings from Part 1 of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan be noted.

Following on from this item, the committee’s attention was drawn to a copy of a letter which had been circulated by the Secretary of State which set out the Government’s thinking on the Planning and Levelling Up Bill that was going through Parliament and other possible changes to the planning system .

A member asked what the impact of this would be on the Local Plan and was advised that at present, officers would be unable to say until further details had been provided. It was noted that the abolition of the Duty to Cooperate was discussed in this document.

A member requested that this document be circulated to all members of the Council and officers agreed that this would be done.