Agenda item

Head of Planning and Infrastructure

The Planning Policy Team Manager presented the report to members. He took the report in two parts, commencing first with the issues around the Partial Review.

He reported that the hearing sessions at the Examination concluded on 17 September 2020, and at the end of the hearing sessions, officers were requested by the Inspector to prepare a number of main modifications that arose from the various discussions, which took place.

The Inspector asked the Council to undertake consultation on these main modifications and these were published for a 6-week consultation period starting on 30 November 2020. The consultation closes on 10 January 2021. Following the close of the consultation, officers will go through the responses and prepare a schedule for the Inspector. In the event that the Inspector recommends that the revised Local Plan can be adopted this will then be subject to a report to Council for adoption.

A member sought clarification on the references to the Use Classes, and specifically where these had changed, and asked why the specific change of Use Class was not referenced and asked if there were any substantial differences between them and which of the definitions would apply in the Local Plan once the modifications have been agreed. Another member was concerned about the timing of the consultation, given that it was over the Christmas period, access to the consultation and the methodology for responding.  

The Planning Policy Team Manager advised that he was not aware of any change to the definition but the Use Classes have been amended to include more Use types. He acknowledged the unfortunate timing of the consultation and confirmed that responses could be submitted in writing or by email and that the on line form was for ease of access to those who wished to use this platform. The Chairman also offered to collate responses and offered this as an additional vehicle for responding to the consultation and urged fellow councillors to spread the word in their communities to encourage participation.    

The Planning Policy Team Manager went on to report on the Substantive Review. In response to issues raised by members earlier in the meeting, he advised that the timetable for the Substantive Review would be reliant on the modifications from the Partial Review.  The proposed modifications require submission of the Substantive Review to the Secretary of State within 18 months of whichever is the earliest of a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) being agreed or 21 May 2021. There is no firm timetable for the agreement of the SoCG, but it is considered unlikely that this would happen before the end of February 2021 at the earliest. On this basis, submission of the Substantive Review would be required by the end of August 2022. If a SoCG is not agreed or slips significantly, then submission of the Substantive Review would be required by 21 November 2022 (i.e. 18 months on from 21 May 2021). It was acknowledged that this a very tight and challenging timetable.

A member understood that some sites which had been refused planning permission both at the Planning Committee and on appeal may now be put forward for development and this, it was felt, would cause considerable confusion and anger to affected local residents. Officers were urged to try and do what they could to prevent this happening as far as they were able.  Concerns were also raised about the lack of cross boundary considerations and asked that these be factored in.

A member reiterated concerns around presentation and language and asked that documents be written so that they can be easily understood by the public given that they will be strongly encouraged to respond to the consultation. Issues were also raised in relation to the suggested High 2 scenario, which seeks to take account of the issue of unmet needs from Leicester City and the proposal to build in an additional proportion for growth of 20%. However the report went on the state that, in the event that the proposed changes to the standard             method are confirmed by the government, then it is understood that Leicester City would no longer have an unmet need. This was considered contradictory. A member felt that many local residents would be harshly affected in order to meet this projection and he would not want       the Committee to go down this route unless it was convinced that there was a good reason for doing so.

The Planning Policy Team Manager confirmed that the references to the unmet need of Leicester City did appear to be contradictory but the reason that these references have remained is due to the fact the government’s intentions on ‘standard method’ were currently unknown, and so, whilst there is a possibility that Leicester City won’t be able to meet its needs, then it is considered prudent to factor in a contingency against this

There were mixed views on whether the preference for new development should be spread across a number of sites or whether it should be a dedicated ‘new town’ given the bolt on effect and loss of identity of some of the local towns and villages and the lack of infrastructure.

Officers were commended for their report and it was moved by Councillor J Legrys, seconded by Councillor V Richichi and 

RESOLVED THAT:

That the Local Plan Committee:

      (i)     Notes the progress on the Local Plan Partial Review;

    (ii)    Notes the suggested timetable for the Substantive Review;

    (iii)   Agrees to updating the Local Development Scheme when there is greater clarity in respect of the timetable for the Statement of Common Ground to be agreed by all of the Leicester and Leicestershire Authorities;

   (iv) Agrees to testing the four Growth Options set out after paragraph 3.25 of the   report; and

  (v)    Notes the proposals to develop the evidence base.