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.

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

Councillor R Morris declared that he had been lobbied without influence on item 5 of the agenda, New Local Plan – Diseworth and Isley Woodhourse Area of Separation, but had come to the meeting with an open mind.

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

There were 6 public questions received.

Question from Mr Roy Todd

With reference to the Council’s own records, can the Committee identify the specific recorded rationale relied upon when progressing site EMP97 for not undertaking Regulation 18 consultation, in circumstances where:

·       technical engagement on EMP97 has been ongoing since at least early 2024, including sustained engagement with the site promoters and Leicestershire County Council Highways;

·       that engagement included an acknowledged in-principle highways objection relating to access arrangements, the operational function of the Kegworth Bypass, and site topography, as evidenced in contemporaneous internal records received by way of Environmental Information Regulations requests, including correspondence dated 8 August 2024;

·       internal correspondence disclosed under the Environmental Information Regulations confirms that, as at 14 November 2025, just five days prior to the Local Plan Committee decision of 19 November 2025, officers regarded the site as “at risk” because the primary access arrangements lie outside the site red line and beyond the promoter’s control;

·       Environmental Information Regulation disclosures show that no engagement had taken place at allocation stage with either the Civil Aviation Authority or East Midlands Airport / Manchester Airport Group, despite the site’s proximity to the airport’s runway approach and Public Safety Zone; yet

·       the site was not subject to Regulation 18 consultation, and Members themselves recorded on 19 November 2025 that it “did not get full scrutiny from local residents”;

and, in those circumstances, how the Committee reconciles a prolonged period of promoter-engaged technical work on EMP97 with the purpose of Regulation 18 and the Council’s own Statement of Community Involvement, both of which are intended to secure early and meaningful public engagement and a robust evidence base before options are effectively fixed?

Response from the Chair

·       It is established practice for officers to discuss the technical aspects of potential site allocations (of all types) with expert agencies, such as the local highways authority, before making recommendations to the Committee. This may also include asking for information and clarifications from the site promoters.

·       The fact that LCC Highways has concerns about the access to this site was clearly stated in the 19 November 2025 Local Plan Committee report (paragraph 4.12). Appendix B of the same report identified that more detailed assessment may reveal a technical solution which LCC could support.

·       In respect of the airport, the greatest proportion of the site lies outside the airport Public Safety Zone. Officers’ view is that the site can be developed without encroaching on the PSZ.

·       If these, or any other technical matters, cannot be addressed to the satisfaction of professional officers, the advice to the Committee to allocate the site may be changed.

·       The 19 November 2025 Local Plan Committee report gave reasons both for and against Regulation 18 consultation at this stage and, on balance, recommended against it. This advice and the decision the Committee made does not contravene the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement.

·       It is relevant to highlight that a site allocation policy will be included in the Regulation 19 version of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 19 November 2025.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 19 November 2025.

A concern was raised that there was a possible inaccuracy in recommendation 1 of minute item 17.

It was moved by Councillor D Bigby, seconded by Councillor M Ball and

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 November 2025 be approved and signed by the Chair as an accurate record of proceedings, and that the recording be reviewed before the next meeting to determine whether recommendation 1 of minute item 17 needed to be amended in the minutes to include Appendix B to more accurately reflect the decision made at the Committee.

Post-meeting note: Following a review of the recording, recommendation 1 was agreed as minuted.

The report of the Principal Planning Policy Officer.

The Principal Planning Policy Officer presented the report.

A discussion was had during which members expressed their support for including Parcels A – I in the Area of Separation. It was commented that it was reasonable to include Parcels H and I in the Area of Separation as the developers of Isley Woodhouse proposed sporting uses for these areas. It was also noted that there would be no negative impact on the character of the surrounding area because Policy En5 of the Local Plan ensured that future developments were sustainable and caused minimal disruption.

The Interim Local Plan Manager explained that policy wording was key to ensuring that the Area of Separation provided effective protection to the intended areas.

Councillor R Morris moved that the proposed Diseworth and Isley Woodhouse Area of Separation should encompass Parcels A - I. It was seconded by Councillor D Bigby and

RESOLVED THAT:

The proposed Diseworth and Isley Woodhouse area of separation should encompass Parcels A to I as shown on the Plan at Appendix A.

The report of the Principal Planning Policy Officer.

The Principal Planning Policy Officer presented the report.

A discussion followed during which several questions of clarity were addressed by the planning policy officers and the Legal Advisor.

Members questioned whether local councils (including parish and town councils) could have the first option to adopt open spaces and play areas on new estates, and also if thatcould be included in a policy.

Members were advised that the Council could not direct a private landowner in such a way, and that these would be managed by the developer. It was added by the Legal Advisor that if there was a policy, it could say that the preferred option would be for it to go to parish and town councils but ultimately it was for the developers to decide on how they dispose of the land, and up to the parish and town councils to accept it.

The Legal Advisor commented that these concerns were being looked at by the Government, and legislation could be introduced in the future to prevent unsustainable development from happening.

Following the request of a member, it was minuted that members were frustrated about the length of agendas, and that they had been given insufficient time to study the content. Officers were urged to provide members with sufficient time to read lengthy documents prior to the meeting.

As recommendations 1, 2, and 3 were to note the contents of the report, members were thanked for their comments.

Councillor M Wyatt moved recommendation 4. It was seconded by Councillor P Lees and

RESOLVED THAT:

Subject to the findings of the whole plan viability assessment, the Local Plan Committee agrees to Policy IF4: Open Space, Sport and Recreation Facilities, as amended at Appendix E, for inclusion in the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan.