Agenda item

Report of the Planning Policy Team Manager

The Planning Policy Team Manager presented the report.

In response to a question about whether it was possible and appropriate to bring developers with large-scale proposals before the Committee, the Planning Policy Team Manager advised how it would work: once officers had suggested their preferred sites it may then be the opportune moment to bring developers before the committee. It would be an unrealistic timeframe between now and the next meeting of the Committee. The preferred sites should be selected first.

A Member commended the idea of bringing developers before the committee but suggested that there was a number of points to consider: September was earmarked for putting land allocation proposals in front of the committee; the mechanics of bringing developers in must be fair and equitable when deciding which developers to bring before the committee, and due consideration must be given to legal matters and conflicts of interests, particularly for members who were also on the Planning Committee.

The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager acknowledged that the question of how to fairly determine which developers spoke before the Committee was an important one. In response to a question about how the provision of services, infrastructure and amenities for a given development was managed, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager advised that any proposed  allocation would have individual requirements attached to it that any future development would need to satisfy. Following that there would be consultation with stakeholders. In addition,the next stage of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan would look in specific detail at each site in terms of what was required. 

Any development would always be subject to viability, and adjustments may need to be made. However, most infrastructure would emerge in a phased manner throughout the life of the development, although some critical facilities such as sewage treatment would of course be present from the opening of a site.

In response to a question about possibly beginning the process of rescinding the earlier Statement of Common Ground to take some of Leicester’s unmet housing need, the Planning Policy Team Manager said it was a matter for Council. There were significant risks attached, which would need to be taken into consideration, especially around the duty to cooperate with other councils.

In response to a question about changes to the preferred existing employment allocation and potential changes to this because of the planned Freeport, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager said that there was only one outstanding allocation, at Ashby Money Hill. It was unlikely that changes to recommendations would occur at this time: the local plan had assumptions about what was likely to be built incorporated into them. They then explained the distinction between strategic land and employment land within the Local Plan framework.

In response to a question about the legal requirement of water companies to provide sewage treatment infrastructure to a development, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager confirmed that there was an obligation to provide capacity.

In response to a question about the weight given to employment in strategic assessments and how this was calculated, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager advised that the assessment was in terms of land required in terms of floor space. Some forecasts, they added, were made around the question of job creation and these were then fed into floor space calculations.

In response to a question about the risk of a Local Plan not being found to be sound, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager explained the process and tests of soundness and the need to comply with national policy goals.

In response to a question about how changes to national policy would impact the nature of the Local Plan, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager advised that changing national policy was a perennial possibility and would always be fed into the Local Plan as required.

In response to a question about the likely capriciousness of national planning policy over a twenty year period, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager advised that they worked to a plan of how much housing they needed by a given time, in this instance 2040, and how much land they had available to utilise to achieve this goal.

In response to a question about safeguards, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager advised that it was hard to stop people putting in planning applications and that the planning system operates within a free market system. They also advised that developers would acknowledge market imperatives: there was currently evidence of a slowing rate of new builds and a potentially deflating housing market.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the Council’s strategic approach safeguarded against precisely the changing circumstances of short and medium term economic forces with which the member had been concerned. This was, they added, perhaps an argument for the Local Plan process: things were frequently in flux, but it may be preferable to deal with the certainties which were known at any given time.

In response to a question about the deadline for the January 2025 inquiry, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager advised that June 2025 was the essential date.

It was moved by Councillor Legrys, seconded by Councillor Lees and

RESOLVED THAT:

The position and discussion as of April 2023 regarding both housing and employment land as set out in the report be noted.