Agenda item

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

There were five public questions received.

Question from Ms A Kingaby

‘The SHELAA entry for Site A27 is out of date and cannot be relied on as decision-level evidence, there is also no plan-level Habitats Regulations Assessment/Appropriate Assessment for the River Mease published with a guaranteed nutrient solution - therefore, will you confirm that A27 will not be advanced to Regulation 19 at this meeting unless officers can point to the exact document and page in tonight’s public papers that show, in plain terms, all of the following:

1. River Mease test passed: the legally required Habitats Assessment for the plan concludes no harm to the Mease and the phosphate fix is secured and workable (not just promised or dependent on an unbuilt third-party scheme).
2. Biodiversity: proof of at least 10% Biodiversity Net Gain and a map that legally fixes continuous wildlife corridors, minimum buffer strips next to hedges/woodland/ditch, and a low-light “dark corridor” plan.
3. Road safety and traffic: a Stage-1 road-safety audit and sightline drawings for the Rushey Close/Bishop Hall Road access, and traffic modelling that includes Money Hill/Burton Road (impacts assessed together).
4. Drainage certainty: a Severn Trent letter confirming foul capacity, plus a surface-water/SuDS plan showing how runoff is treated, stored and routed in storms, and any legal consent needed to alter the boundary ditch.
5. Legal right of access: documents proving the developer has the legal right to use the through-estate road, and whether that route is adopted or secured with the highway authority (S38/S278).

If any one of these is missing from the public papers, will you defer A27 to a later meeting and require a full public report before any Reg-19 decision?’

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee

‘The site assessment work will be reviewed and updated to inform the Regulation 19 plan.

A Habitat Regulation Assessment of the plan is not required at this stage, but it will be undertaken for the Regulation 19 plan. There is a nutrient solution which Severn Trent are pursuing which involves pumping out of the River Mease catchment. This is scheduled to be done by the end of March 2027. Severn Trent have reconfirmed this recently.

As part of the Local Plan it will be necessary to demonstrate that there is a scheme in place to address the phosphate issue. However, the securing of any measures is a requirement of the planning application stage, either through conditions or via a legal agreement (Section 106 Agreement).

The requirement for how biodiversity net gain requirements will be addressed are matters for a planning application stage.

In terms of highway design, the County Councils Highway Design Guide advises that road safety audits are required for development of 150 dwellings or the layout contains features not covered by the Leicestershire Highway Design Guidance. This site is below this threshold and the County Highway Authority did not raise any concerns when consulted upon the draft plan.

In terms of drainage Severn Trent Water did not object to the proposed allocation. The exact details of how foul water will be addressed is a matter to be addressed as part of any subsequent planning application.

In response to this question, the site promoter (Richborough) has advised that they “retain all necessary rights to acquire the land required to deliver the connections to Rushey Close for access purposes. Richborough’s client (owner of the A27 allocation) is the same landowner who sold the land to Bellway that comprised the adjacent application boundary (14/00578/OUTM) – Richborough were also the applicant for that outline application.” As outlined in response to question 3, the County Highway Authority has not objected to the proposed allocation.’

Supplementary question asked:

In response to a supplementary question, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager explained that, as Severn Trent were still committed to the scheme that involved pumping water out of the catchment area, any development would not be allowed to happen at the present time until the scheme was in place. However, as the Local Plan was looking ahead to 2042, this was due to happen in the  early part of the plan period.

The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager then noted that nutrient neutrality would be a part of a planning application rather than an allocation.

It was added that transport modelling work covering the District and the areas in the Plan was ongoing and would inform future decisions made by the Council with regards to Regulation 19. Also, estate fees were not a matter for which the Council would be responsible, as they were legal matters between homeowners and developers.

Question from Mr J Peck

Mr J Peck was not in attendance, so his question was not asked.

Question from Mr C Taylor

‘You have justified WWV remaining in the plan because Meadow Lane and Measham have been removed and suggest that the plan will fail if you remove any more sites, despite planning for more than your quota to be built. You have built houses and employment sites allocated to other areas. Have you asked other areas to co-operate and build part of NWLDC’s quota?’

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee

‘It would only be possible to ask other authorities to help meet the Council’s housing requirement if it was able to demonstrate that the need for North West Leicestershire cannot be accommodated within the district. This is not the case. Therefore, the other Leicestershire authorities would decline to take any additional development in the absence of demonstrable evidence.’

In response to a supplementary question, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager explained that local people would benefit from building houses within the district by ensuring that the housing needs of existing and future residents were met.

Question from Ms G Baker

‘Number 1 of your 11 Plan Objectives is to ‘Enable the Health and Wellbeing of the District’s Population’. The Ivanhoe Way was established to provide people with access to the countryside and crosses through many parts of the proposed West Whitwick Broad Location. It runs from Swannington, through West Whitwick Valley, Grace Dieu woods and onto Osgathorpe and the well-used Worthington Trail. We have suggested that this particularly attractive part of our countryside should form an area of separation between Coalville, West Whitwick and Thringstone. This is in order to protect their village communities and identity, which together with access to the countryside, would enable the health and wellbeing of residents.  

How many other sites, currently within your strategy plan, also form such an integral part of the Ivanhoe Way?’

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee

‘No other sites that are proposed for housing or employment in the Local Plan lie on the route of the Ivanhoe Way. Any future development will be required to retain and enhance any public footpaths which cross the site.’

In response to a supplementary question related to Policy EN5, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager explained that there was currently an area of separation in East Coalville in the adopted Local Plan, and that an area of separation between Whitwick and Thringstone was also recognised.

It was added that, while a proposal had been put forward to devote part of East Coalville to housing development, there was no reason why the rest of the area should not be maintained as an area of separation. Areas surrounded by development, however, were not regarded as countryside.

Question from Mr M Elton

‘Your Plan Objective number 8 states that you will conserve and enhance our heritage. Drone footage over C77, prior to the fields being cut, identified a double-edged circle. Following discussions with a specialist, we have been advised that this is the probable site of a GIN mine. These were the 1^st mechanical mines which were introduced within North West Leicestershire in the 17^th century where shallow coal seams were common. This area has a very deep compression with water constantly sleeping through which suggests this could have Subsidence issues. A similar Heritage site exists and is open to the public at Hough Windmill in Swannington.’

Mr M Elton confirmed that the site in the question was incorrect, and that his question was in relation to Site C47.

It was agreed that a response to his amended question would be provided outside of the meeting.