Agenda item

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

 

The Chair read out a statement, stressing that the Local Plan drafting process was evidence led, and though some of the decisions to be made at the meeting could be controversial or emotive, she called for a civil and amicable debate.

 

There were four questions asked which 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 Mr J Perry:

 

“If the Broad Location, C 47/C 81 etc, remains in the Local Plan I am assuming considerations re: access issues (roads) have already been resolved. Based on the anticipated number of houses to be built there may be in excess of 1,000 additional vehicles on those roads. This would render the use of Church Lane as the sole exit impractical & unrealistic.

 

In my assessment, to satisfy adequate access requirements, the construction of a major road through C48 will be required. This road would then have to cross Church Lane into any planned development.

 

My question: if this is the case will that road be contained within the proposed development C 47/ C 81.”

 

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee:

 

“The County Highway Authority in their response to the draft Local Plan advised that access to this site should be considered in conjunction with site C48 off Thornborough Road. The site promoter is currently looking at this, but the exact details have yet to be determined but it would suggest that there would be some possible form of connection between the two sites across Church Lane.”

 

The supplementary question asked if in the future the agreed access arrangements  for the  broad location at West Whitwick were amended, would this be subject to further public consultation.

 

The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager advised that the matter of access at the West Whitwick sites would be considered at that point if necessary, but there would be a second, more bespoke round of consultation as part of the wider Local Plan drafting process anyway.

 

Question from Mr P Philips:

 

“Officers and Members will now be well aware of a growing feeling among the community that public consultation was inadequate in the case of West Whitwick Valley being included for housing development in the proposed Local Plan.  This is evidenced by the fact that the majority of those most affected by this inclusion had no knowledge of either the proposal or the consultation until after the consultation closing date.  It is noted that in the past consultations have been sent to individual households for far less significant development proposals.  In the interest of fairness, transparency and reasonableness, all of which the Council is clearly signed up to delivering, is it agreed that a second public consultation is appropriate in this case, ensuring those most effected are properly and clearly notified”

 

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee:

 

“In preparing a Local Plan there is no requirement unlike with planning applications, to consult with individual households in the vicinity of any proposed development site. The approach to the consultation was consistent with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement.

 

The decision to consult on the draft Local Plan was made at the Council’s Local Plan Committee on 17 January 2024. This was a public meeting which was also streamed live. The report to the 17 January meeting specifically noted that the contents of the draft Plan would be consulted upon for a six-week period, which subsequently took place between 5 February 2024 and 17 March 2024

 

Information about the consultation, including what was proposed, was on the Council’s website, together with details of the consultation period and how to respond, as well as where public drop-in sessions were taking place. One such drop-in session was for the wider Coalville area at the New Life Church in Margaret Street Coalville on 12 February 2024. In addition, messages were also put out via social media and the local press.  The Council also consulted directly with all Parish Councils.

 

As can be seen from Table 1 of item 5, the number of responses to the proposed West of Whitwick Broad Location was only bettered by that in respect of the proposed new settlement. This would suggest, therefore, that people were aware of the draft Plan.”

 

The supplementary question reiterated the suggestion that the consultation had been inadequately publicised and asked how many submitted petitions would stimulate another consultation regarding the proposed site at West Whitwick.

 

The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager said there was no threshold as such for petitions, and noted that the West Whitwick site had received the second highest amount of responses to the original round of consultation, which indicated that the consultation had been sufficiently publicised.

 

Question from Mrs G Armston

 

“I refer to the West Whitwick proposal to build 500 houses from New Swannington to Talbot Lane and a further 300 houses on Thornborough Road.

In order for the for the Broad Location to be included in the Local Plan, the Limits of Development will have to be moved.  Will this be limited to the edge of the proposed development i.e. C81/47?”

 

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee:

 

“As part of the draft Plan we did publish proposed changes to the Limits to Development. In respect of the West of Whitwick Broad Location, the proposal was to include all of the site, but no other change was proposed. A review of the Limits to Development, including considering any consultation responses received, will be the subject of a report to a future meeting of the Local Plan Committee.”

 

The Supplementary question asked about plans for further consultation and the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager reiterated that there would be a second round of consultation, though he also noted that this would be more bespoke than the first round of consultation.

 

Question from Mr C Taylor:

 

“The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has stated “I am delighted to be appointed as Environmental Secretary. I look forward to tackling the important issues facing our rural communities including championing British food, protecting people from flooding and improving the environment.” Considering these priorities, how does the Council justify the proposed development on the West Whitwick Valley, given its impact on agricultural land, flood risk and local biodiversity?”

 

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee:

 

“The Local Plan has to seek to reconcile a number of competing demands. This includes reconciling the need for new development with the need to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land whilst also ensuring that new development does not exacerbate flooding and making provision for biodiversity net gain.

 

The Government has made it clear that local plans must address the need for new housing, with a national target of 1.5 million new homes being required over the next five years. A failure to make sufficient provision will almost certainly result in the Plan being considered as not sound at Examination.

 

In terms of agricultural land quality, information from Natural England suggests that most of the site is grade 4 land (poor quality), with the remainder being grade 3 (good to moderate).

 

The land to the west of Whitwick is located within Flood Zone 1, which is the lowest risk area for flooding. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the Local Plan confirms that the site satisfies the Sequential Test as required by national policy. Furthermore, neither the Environment Agency nor the Lead Local Flood Authority (Leicestershire County Council) have raised an objection. 

 

Any new development will be required to deliver biodiversity net gain equivalent to at least 10% as required by the Environment Act 2021.”

 

The supplementary question noted the various sites around Whitwick which in the questioner’s view might be more appropriate for development, and thus wondered why they hadn’t been included instead of the site at West Whitwick.

 

The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager set out specific issues with two of the named sites and why they had consequently been rejected for inclusion in the draft Local Plan; he also advised that the third site mentioned was one which the Committee had voted to remove in November 2023.

 

Question from Mr H Baker:

 

“I have attended the last 3 meetings and heard a number of valid reasons why 500 houses should not be built on the West Whitwick site.  They included:

·      Underground Streams

·      Flood risk;

·      Lack of infrastructure and

·      Almost impossible access

No one has mentioned the Thringstone fault.  This is a very unstable fault which runs in the earth’s surface between Talbot Lane and School Lane, New Swannington, where the ground is very wet.  Exactly where it is proposed that the houses will be built. 

I have spent some time looking up information about faults in the earth’s surface and understand that if an active fault exists, it has the potential for the surface to rupture and a structure for human habitation should not be built over a fault line.  I also found a relatively recent example of a house which had been built on Thringstone fault and was crumbling badly.  The fact that the house was for sale at a knockdown price made the headlines of Leicester Mercury, via Leicestershire Live.

An advantage of a fault line is that the soil on the surface is very fertile and is easy and cost effective to farm.

There is a Health and Safety risk for people buying houses built on a fault line, the cost of house insurance will be high and difficult to find.  Particularly if there is also a risk of flooding.  Mortgages, in order to purchase the houses are also likely to be either expensive or difficult to obtain.

I would therefore conclude that if houses are built on this site, they are unlikely to be affordable and would contribute to the number of houses currently standing empty within North West Leicestershire.

Do Councillors agree that there are a number of sites available where the land is less fertile, where house building is likely to be more affordable, and be a would safer alternative for residents, than West Whitwick?'”

 

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee:

 

The article in Leicester Mercury acknowledges that the cause of the subsidence in the instance referred to is not known.

 

There is no evidence that has been presented to suggest that the Thringstone fault would preclude development. A map on the Northen Mine Research Society website would suggest that the fault does not run anywhere near the site.

 

Geology of the Leicestershire Coalfield - Northern Mine Research Society

 

In any event, the National Planning Policy Framework states that “Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner”. Therefore, it will be the responsibility of the developer/promoter to satisfy themselves that there is not likely to be a land stability issue.

 

The supplementary question raised a separate issue, and Officers advised that they did not have the information to hand and were unable to deal with it as it did not relate to the preceding question.