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.

Councillor R Morris declared a registerable interest in item 6 – Breedon on the Hill Neighbourhood Plan Submission (Regulation 16) Consultation, as the Chair of Breedon on the Hill Parish Council.  He would leave the room during the discussion or voting on the item.

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

There were four questions asked which are set out below together with the responses.  Each member of the public who asked a question was invited by the Chair to ask one supplementary question which is also set out together with the response.

Question from Ms Baker

‘I understand that NWLDC has exceeded their allocated quota of 357 new properties per year by building an average of 789 properties per year between 2020/21 and 2022/23. This additional building will have contributed to the Council now being allocated a new mandatory quota of 621 properties.  After speaking to members of the Planning Committee, I am now aware that NWLDC agreed to take on a proportion of Leicester City Council’s housing number responsibilities.  I was particularly devastated to find that the draft plan includes a proposal to build 500 properties to the west of Whitwick, which will completely destroy that village community, be detrimental to the wildlife and the environment, destroy productive farmland and to place even more pressure on the road network and local resources.

Do the Council intend to continue to build a greater number than their fair share of housing into the future?’

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee

‘Whilst the standard method does result in annual requirement for 357 dwellings, to this has to be added any unmet need from elsewhere within Leicester and Leicestershire. Leicester City has demonstrated to the satisfaction of all of the Leicestershire authorities that it is not able to accommodate all its needs within its boundaries. Therefore, under the Duty to Cooperate that the Council is required to satisfy, all of the other Leicestershire authorities have to help meet this unmet need. In addition, any housing requirement has to take account of any other local factors. In this instance, there is an imbalance between the number of future jobs and homes in the district.  Therefore, the final housing requirement has been established as 686 dwellings each year. It is this factor which accounts for most of the increase in North West Leicestershire.

More details about this can be found at paragraphs 4.7 to 4.12 of the Proposed Policies document published in February and which can be viewed on the Council’s website.

Whilst this number was exceeded in the first couple of years, it is likely that in some future years it will not be met. In effect there will be peaks and troughs which over time even each other out.

It is not the Council’s intention to see more housing built than is required, but it does have to ensure that it meets whatever the identified need is.’

Supplementary question and response

Ms Baker asked if the Council had done everything it could to identify alternative sites that were more environmentally friendly and where development would be more in line with the community needs.  The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager advised that the plan was looking to strike a balance with where jobs and homes are located. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 22 May 2024

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 22 May 2024.

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

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 May 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 and along with the Principal Planning Policy Officers, summarised each of the policies for consideration.

For clarification prior to the discussion, the Legal Advisor explained the ‘duty to co-operate’ requirement in relation to the current consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).   Discussion from Members followed in which reference was made to the possibility of looking again at allocated sites for development.  The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager confirmed that this was still uncertain and would come back to Committee in due course.

During continued discussion on the ‘duty to co-operate’ requirement, comments were made by Members on the lower level of co-operation from some nearby authorities and it was suggested that an elected member attend the regional meetings where allocation of unmet need figures were discussed.  It was also suggested that the Council ask other authorities to take some of North West Leicestershire’s housing allocation.  The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager explained that North West Leicestershire had not declared any unmet housing need and therefore it could not be discussed with other authorities.

Each policy was then discussed in turn and several questions of clarity were sought and addressed by officers throughout the discussion.

Policy S1 – Future Housing and Economic Development Needs

Discussion was had on the possible extension of the local plan period, and it was explained that further work would be undertaken in due course on the employment requirements following the very recent national changes.

A suggestion was made to separate industrial development and warehousing.  The Principal Planning Policy Officer explained the practicality of combining the two in planning terms due to the similar nature.  It was also noted that combining them gave more flexibility, as separation could lead to the need to allocate more land to ensure numbers.

Following a discussion on the Freeport site it was confirmed that planning requirements still applied, and planning infrastructure would be needed if demonstrated it was required.  It was noted that only if the Development Consent Order was granted would the site become part of the district supply numbers.

Policy S2 – Settlement Hierarchy

Officers corrected an error in the report at the appendix on page 74 of the agenda pack, the missing figure in relation to the two Kegworth sites was 251 dwellings.

Some concern was raised in the consultation that although there was the ability for settlements to move up categories if improvements were made in the area, there was not the ability to move down if the category disappeared.  The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager explained that in these circumstances the settlement would be classed as a local needs settlement and therefore development would be discouraged. 

Policy S5 – Residential Development in the Countryside

Concerns were raised about self builds in rural areas and it was asked if it should be included in the policy.  The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager explained that the policy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The report of the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager

Having declared an interest, Councillor R Morris left the meeting at this point and did not take part in any discussion or voting on the item.

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

It was moved by Councillor J Legrys, seconded by Councillor A Barker and

RESOLVED THAT:

1)     The proposed response to the submission draft of the Breedon on the Hill Neighbourhood Plan in Appendix A be agreed.

2)     The consultation period for the Breedon on the Hill Neighbourhood Plan be noted.

3)     It be noted that following receipt of the Independent Examiner’s report, the Strategic Director of Place in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Infrastructure to determine whether the conditions have been met for the Neighbourhood Plan to proceed to referendum.

4)     It be noted that following the referendum and if time does not allow for a report to this Committee, the Strategic Director of Place in Consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Infrastructure to determine whether the Neighbourhood Plan should be ‘made’.