Agenda item

To receive questions from members of the public under procedure rule no.10.  The procedure rule provides that members of the public may ask members of the Cabinet any question on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties which affect the District, provided that three clear days’ notice in writing has been given to the Head of Legal and Commercial Services.

There were nine questions asked which are set out below together with the responses.

 

Question by Claire Palmer

 

“How does not taking the opportunity to convert the many derelict sites in Leicester City into residential property but instead shifting this housing quota to decimate prime agricultural rural sites in NWLDC concord with the levelling up agenda?”

 

Response

 

“Leicester City Council through its Local Plan is seeking to secure the redevelopment of brownfield sites across the City, as required by government policy. However, government policy has also significantly increased the amount of housing that the City needs to provide. This requirement is more than can be achieved on the brownfield sites in the City. The District Council is required by government policy to work with the other authorities in Leicestershire to address the unmet need. The distribution proposed in the Statement of Common Ground achieves this.  The failure to agree a redistribution represents a significant risk to the Council’s local plan which in turn would leave the district vulnerable to unwanted planning applications”

 

Question by Gerald Palmer

 

“In light of the conflict in Ukraine exasperating the issue, how will Britain ever be able to be sustainable for grain production if all our fields are built on?”

 

Response

 

“The District Council is required by government policy to work with the other authorities in Leicestershire to ensure that all of the Leicester and Leicestershire Housing Market Area housing needs are met. This includes agreeing how the unmet need in Leicester City can be accommodated elsewhere. A failure to do so represents a significant risk to the Council’s local plan which in turn would leave the district vulnerable to unwanted planning applications. Even without the unmet need, it is inevitable that some agricultural land will need to be released for development. The amount of land that this entails represents only a very small proportion of the district”.

 

Question by Simon Haggart

 

“If the housing need proposed for Leicester City is to address the expected population increase in Leicester City residents, how will this population be best served by housing them in a rural environment, lacking all urban amenities and disconnected entirely from Leicester City? (They won’t want to live there and we don’t want the housing here, destroying yet more Countryside)”

 

Response

 

“The District Council is required by government policy to work with the other authorities in Leicestershire to ensure that all of the Leicester and Leicestershire Housing Market Area housing needs are met. The distribution proposed in the Statement of Common Ground achieves this. The proposed distribution has regard to a whole range of factors, including not just the functional relationship of each authority area with Leicester City, but also the balance of jobs and homes in each authority area and deliverability of the distribution of development. It is the balance between jobs and homes that has driven the figure for North West Leicestershire rather than the functional relationship with the City.  The failure to agree a redistribution represents a significant risk to the Council’s local plan which in turn would leave the district vulnerable to unwanted planning applications”.

 

Question by Paula Haggart

 

“Our district is already the only district in Leicestershire ear marked to lose significant rural land to HS2 despite being one of the few without access to a train station, any additional loss would be devastating so why is NWLDC being considered for such a disproportionately high ‘quota’ from Leicester City (an area with which we have no nexus)”

 

Response

 

“As previously stated, the District Council is required by government policy to work with the other authorities in Leicestershire to ensure that all of the Leicester and Leicestershire Housing Market Area housing needs are met. The distribution proposed in the Statement of Common Ground achieves this. The proposed distribution has regard to a whole range of factors, including not just the functional relationship of each authority area with Leicester City, but also the balance of jobs and homes in each authority area and deliverability of the distribution of development. It is the balance between jobs and homes that has driven the figure for North West Leicestershire rather than the functional relationship with the City. The failure to agree a redistribution represents a significant risk to the Council’s local plan which in turn would leave the district vulnerable to unwanted planning applications”

 

Question by Graham Budd

 

“With reference to Charnwood BC recommending building 56 new homes on 16 acres of farmland and justifying this against local’s objections by saying they ‘have a lack of useable land to meet their building quota’ why are they then considering taking 1248 housing quota and 23 ha employment land from Leicester City Council and is this counterintuitive argument going to be mirrored here?”

 

Response

 

“Charnwood Borough Council is not able to demonstrate that it has a five-year supply of housing land. Therefore, in accordance with government policy its current adopted local plan is out-of-date. Therefore, unless it has very good reasons to reject a proposed site there is a presumption in favour of the development. This Council is able to demonstrate that it has a five-year supply of housing land”

 

Question by Jenni Budd

 

“Why are we considering building in NWLDC where such development would counteract multiple government policies such as sustainable transport (we have no train station stations and poor bus services), net zero (losing fields will reduce natural carbon sinks), biodiversity, woodland creation, green corridors - all these are undermined by greenfield development whereas Leicester city has ample brownfield sites available?”

 

Response

 

“Leicester City Council through its Local Plan is seeking to secure the redevelopment of brownfield sites across the City, as required by government policy. However, government policy has also significantly increased the amount of housing that the City needs to provide. This requirement is more than can be achieved on the brownfield sites. Government policies require that all of the Leicestershire authorities have to work together to ensure that all of the Leicester and Leicestershire Housing Market Area housing needs are met. The distribution proposed in the Statement of Common Ground achieves this.  The proposed distribution has regard to a whole range of factors, including not just the functional relationship of each authority area with Leicester City, but also the balance of jobs and homes in each authority area and deliverability of the distribution of development. It is the balance between jobs and homes that has driven the figure for North-West Leicestershire rather than the functional relationship with the City. Achieving a better balance between jobs and homes will help to reduce the need to commute which in turn will assist with meeting zero carbon aims. The local plan review will not only need to identify suitable sites, but also the new infrastructure required to support development, such as improved public transport, walking and cycling as well as making provision for enhanced biodiversity”

 

Question by Anne Stafford

 

“If the housing need for Leicester City is to reflect, or ensure, Leicester City’s increased prosperity, how is this objective achieved if housing is given to other authorities for whom taking it represents a diminishing of its very essence?”

 

Response

 

“Leicester City Council through its Local Plan is seeking to ensure that as much of its needs can be accommodated within its boundaries. However, government policy has significantly increased the amount of housing that the City needs to provide. This, coupled with the fact that the city boundary is already very tight, means that in accordance with other government policies all of the Leicestershire authorities have to work together to ensure that all of the Leicester and Leicestershire Housing Market Area housing needs are met.

The distribution proposed in the Statement of Common Ground achieves this.  The proposed distribution has regard to a whole range of factors, including not just the functional relationship of each authority area with Leicester City, but also the balance of jobs and homes in each authority area and deliverability of the distribution of development. It is the balance between jobs and homes that has driven the figure for North West Leicestershire rather than the functional relationship with the City. The failure to agree a redistribution represents a significant risk to the Council’s local plan which in turn would leave the district vulnerable to unwanted planning applications”

 

Question by Kevin Anderson

 

“Why should NWLDC take any excess housing quota from the unitary authority of Leicester City as we are not geographically neighbouring nor do we have any connection in either classification or economy?”

 

Response

 

“The District Council is required by government policy to work with the other authorities in Leicestershire to ensure that all of the Leicester and Leicestershire Housing Market Area housing needs are met. The distribution proposed in the Statement of Common Ground achieves this. The proposed distribution has regard to a whole range of factors. This includes the functional relationship of each authority area with Leicester City as well as the balance of jobs and homes in each authority area and deliverability of the distribution of development. It is the balance between jobs and homes that has driven the figure for North West Leicestershire rather than the functional relationship with the City. The failure to agree a redistribution represents a significant risk to the Council’s local plan which in turn would leave the district vulnerable to unwanted planning applications”

 

Question by Fiona Anderson

 

“As Leicester City Council was asked to build 39,400 new homes between 2020 and 2036 after the Government announced that the 20 largest cities in England would need to increase their housing supply targets by 35%, why is it not doing so? [or telling the government it cannot, or won’t, manage it]”

 

Response

 

“Leicester City Council through its Local Plan is seeking to ensure that as much of its needs can be accommodated within its boundaries. However, government policy has significantly increased the amount of housing that the City needs to provide. The City boundary is very tight such that it cannot accommodate of all of its needs within its boundary. Government policy requires that all of the Leicestershire authorities work together to ensure that all of the Leicester and Leicestershire Housing Market Area housing needs are met. The Statement of Common Ground achieves this”

 

Each of those who asked a question were invited by the Chairman to ask a supplementary question.

 

Claire Palmer asked if when the Mayor of Leicester speaks on this matter  requesting that we take on the additional housing, this was a demonstration of local autonomy.

 

Simon Haggart asked whether these proposals would result in unwanted planning applications and if not, was that because sites had already been identified and if so, where were they?

 

Graham Budd asked if North West Leicestershire, which has produced a five-year Plan and are now looking at taking on additional housing, would have to revise its Plan and, if so, when?

 

Jenni Budd asked if there were plans for the additional infrastructure required as a result of all the additional housing, specifically an additional secondary school.

 

Anne Stafford asked where in the district were any brownfield sites to prevent building on the green spaces.

 

Kevin Anderson asked why NWLDC had been allocated the second largest allocation as opposed to other neighbouring authorities who are larger with better infrastructure in place.

 

Councillor Ashman responded by advising that we are bound by national legislation to ensure we deliver a Plan and if this Plan is seen as being unsafe or out of date it leaves open the opportunity for developers to build anywhere. Without it the Council would receive unwanted planning applications. The Plan sets out the areas for developers, which made it easier for the Planning Committee to reject applications if minded to do so. There was a duty to co-operate across the district and across the political spectrum. Any planning applicant had to consult with all statutory consultees, and they could insist that the s106 monies were used to fund schools etc. Without their support the application would likely be refused. All sites are considered whether it be brownfield or green sites but most of the brownfield sites have been built on and they cost a lot of money to make them good by having to have them decontaminated. The distribution and allocation were all part of the detailed discussion and the areas are where the employment growth has been identified.

 

Councillor Ashman offered to clarify any further points outside the meeting if requested.