Agenda and draft 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.

Councillor P Moult declared a registerable interest, he had been lobbied without influence by residents, with regards to the Meadow Lane site.

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 17 January 2024

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 17 January 2024.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 January 2024 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

The report of the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager

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

Members thanked Officers for their hard work during the consultation period.

In light of a formal Councillor Questions item on the agenda, it was agreed that the following exchange would be reproduced verbatim in the minutes.

Question to Local Plan Committee 22^nd May 2024

Hugglescote and Donington le Heath Neighbourhood Plan “Donington Fields Local Green Space”

Question 1: Ashburton Road Recreation Ground

The proposed Neighbourhood Plan was considered by the Independent Examiner. In his report dated 21^st July 2021 he noted in para 4.21 “My concern about Donington Fields is that, at 11.7ha, it is extensive in nature and that the northernmost two plots owned by the Thomas Harley Charities may not endure beyond the Plan period, contrary to advice in paragraph 99 of the NPPF. Furthermore, some of the individual plots of land scored significantly below the threshold set by the Plan for eligibility for LGS, notably plots 097 and 97A. Therefore, in accepting that most of Donington Fields meets the other designation criteria, I shall recommend that this LGS is modified by the exclusion of the northern most plots of land. (PM8).”

I would be grateful if Officers can provide me with answers to the following points:

• The two parcels of land, known as the Recreation Ground/Childrens Play Area, has had free and unobstructed pedestrian access for recreation purposes for a considerable number of decades. My understanding is that the updated NPPF dated 20^th December 2023 now provides additional protections/safeguarding to existing recreation sites. Considering this NPPF clarification, can the above two sites be designated as ‘protected open space’ as part of the current Local Plan Review?

Response

There was no change to NPPF in respect of the issue of protecting open space, sport and recreation land and buildings. Paragraph 103 requires that they should not be built on unless assessment shows they are surplus to requirements, or the loss would be replaced by alternative provision in a suitable location or it is for an alternative sports use.

The recreation ground and children’s play area would be covered by this policy. The field between the recreation ground and the Manor House, would not.

• Bearing in mind that the Examiner states “in accepting that most of Donington Fields meets other designation criteria”, can Officers please explain what these other designations are please?

Response

The reference to other designation criteria refers to paragraph 106 of the NPPF. This states:

The Local Green Space designation should only be used where the green space is:

a) in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves;

 b) demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; and

c) local in character and is not an extensive tract of land

The Examiner’s concern related to point c) as he considered it to be “extensive in nature”.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The report of the Principal Planning Officers

The Principal Planning Policy Officers presented the report.

Members discussed possible changes to the employment allocation at Money Hill, expressing some concern at the envisaged reduction as requested by developers. The Principal Planning Policy Officers advised that the Development Control team had received an Environmental Impact Scoping Opinion, which proposed a lesser amount of employment land. They had not yet seen a justification, so this was simply something to note as an emerging issue in the context of the Local Plan as a totality. The Head of Planning and Infrastructure also updated Members in respect of issues related to the River Mease Special Area of Conservation.

A Member asked for an update on the rescinding of the HS2 legislation. Officers advised that this was planned for summer 2024, although officers noted the unpredictable political context, nationally.

A Member asked about the current status of the five year land supply and when it was likely to run out. The Principal Planning Policy Officer advised that Officers were currently finalising the five year housing trajectory and then would be able to do the relevant calculations. The NPPF guidance had also been changed at the end of 2023 and this had impacted calculations.

A Member asked about the underutilisation of employment land and how this was reflected in the Plan. The Principal Planning Policy Officer noted the challenges of predicting future employment trends, but ultimately Officers had to make the best predictions they could after consulting with the relevant experts. Flexibility must also be built into the finalised Plan.

Members and Officers discussed how the envisaged Freeport impinged on the Plan, and Officers noted that the Council was now just a consultee on the application for a Development Consent Order, and Officers thus could not give definitive answers, though further details would be forthcoming in future meetings.

A Member inquired about the use of consultants in respect of employment forecasts and how their track record of success, or otherwise, was determined. Officer advised that there was a number of ways to produce forecasts and that planning guidance recommended utilising a variety of methods, comparatively and holistically. Officers sought references when appointing consultants and they frequently consulted with other local authorities before hiring a given consultant.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The housing and employment position as at April 2024 as set out in the report be noted.