Agenda 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 available space around the Bardon employment  area had already been given planning permission for housing development and unfortunately there was no other available site in the area.  Whitwick was the nearest settlement to Bardon and therefore the proposed site would strike the balance with jobs and homes.

Question from Mr Perry

‘In view of the importance of the decisions that may be taken as regards the number of additional properties to be built in North West Leicestershire, and in particular approx. 800 new houses proposed in the West Whitwick plan, would it be advisable to delay/postpone any & all decisions to a later date? I ask this question following the recent change of Government & with reference to possible new legislation that has been trailed in the media. Any decisions taken now in haste without knowing the full scope of future legislation could be disastrous for local communities.’

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee

‘Officers are giving consideration to what these changes may mean for the preparation of the Local Plan. However, it is important that the Council gets a new Local Plan in place as soon as possible to ensure that it remains up to date. Without an up-to-date plan, the Council will be vulnerable to planning applications which may be submitted. Therefore, it will be important to maintain progress on a new Local Plan, whilst taking account of changes announced by the government.’

Supplementary question and response

Mr Perry asked if the Committee felt they had made enough effort to promote the proposed changes to the Local Plan as he believed many local people were not aware of the impact it would make on communities.  The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager listed the methods used to publicise the consultation including social media, the Council’s website, publishing information in local newspapers and numerous drop-in sessions with officers across the district. 

Question from Mr Brackenbury

‘What is the justification for the proposed amendment to policy S1(2) setting out a requirement for employment land for the period 2024-2040 of at least 35,000 sq m for office uses and 146,000 sq m for industrial and small warehousing?’

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee

‘The justification for these requirement are derived from an update to the previous Need for Employment Land report as noted at paragraph 4.23 of the Local plan report (Item 5). As set out in Table 2 of item 5, the overall requirement is now less, but it is over a shorter period of time.’

Supplementary question and response

Mr Brackenbury asked for confirmation that, as the Council has the data available to compare rates received against rates due, the evidence referred to takes into account the vacant space both to occupied and unoccupied buildings.  The Planning Policy and land Charges Team Manager agreed to provide a response outside of the meeting.

Question from Mrs Armston

‘Regarding the West Whitwick proposal, the possible main developer has suggested one of the two access points would be off Talbot Street. Anyone who is familiar with the built-up street, in my opinion, would say that's virtually impossible.  For a development of this scale to be considered for inclusion in the local plan, our planners must have considered access points for the committee to make an informed decision.  If so, may I ask where?’

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee

‘The West of Whitwick proposal was identified in the draft plan as a Broad Location. In effect, this means it was an area for further exploration to determine how much, if any of it, might be suitable to be formally allocated for development. In coming to a view on whether allocation would be appropriate or not, a variety of factors need to be considered including how access might be achieved and also how the area might be developed in a comprehensive manner. Officers are assessing the various responses to the consultation which will be reported to a future meeting of this committee.’

Supplementary question and response

Mrs Armston asked if the broad plan for access to the site was likely to get even broader than what was proposed in the consultation.  The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager responded that there was currently nothing to suggest that would be the case and that there was still a lot of work required for the site which was why it was allocated as a broad location.

The Chair thanked the questioners for attending the meeting and putting forward their questions.