Agenda item

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

 

The Chair introduced the item by outlining the proceedings: due to time constraints and for efficiency purposes, each question and response would not be read out. Instead, each questioner was given the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, for which the maximum amount of time was adjusted to not exceed two minutes.

 

There were 11 public questions received.

 

Question from Mr T Legrys

 

‘The hedgehog is listed as a Species of Principal Importance under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. It is also now classified as Vulnerable to Extinction. This Council has a duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity and is required to ensure new developments do not fragment wildlife habitats. Will the Local Plan Committee commit to developing a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), in line with the successful East Cambridgeshire Hedgehog Recovery Design Guidance SPD, to make the inclusion of 13cm x 13cm Hedgehog Highways a mandatory planning condition for all new residential developments in North West Leicestershire?’

 

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee

 

‘The preparation of a Supplementary Planning Document would require time and resources which are already stretched in order to meet the challenging deadline for getting plan submitted for Examination.

 

Draft policy En1 (Nature Conservation/Biodiversity net gain) of the emerging Local Plan addresses the need to ensure that new development secures a net gain in biodiversity, with the priority being for on-site provision. This provides a suitable policy hook for considering future developments.’

 

In response to a supplementary question, it was agreed by the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager that a line could be amended in Draft Policy En1 to include ‘species of principal importance’.

 

Question from Mr M Elton

 

‘At the last meeting in September, I asked if you were aware that a potential GIN mine has been identified, by a specialist, on C77. I was mistaken and this is actually situated within C47. As you are no doubt aware, GIN mines were created in the 17th century where shallow coal seams are common. This area has very deep compressions with water constantly seeping through which suggests this could have Subsidence issues. A similar Heritage site exists and is open to the public at Hough Windmill in Swannington.

 

Given the area's historical association with mining activity, there is credible concern that the site may lie above or adjacent to a former gin mine. These vertical shafts, often poorly documented and inadequately capped, pose significant risks to ground stability, public safety, and long-term structural integrity.

 

In order to develop that site:

 

·       A Coal Mining Risk Assessment (CMRA) would need to be conducted for site C47, which includes specific investigation into the presence of gin mines or shallow workings:

·       Contingency measures would need to be put in place should evidence of a gin mine be discovered during pre-development surveys:

·       The Council would also need to consider how the potential presence of a gin mine aligns with its duty to ensure safe, sustainable development under national planning policy frameworks.

If it is established that a GIN mine exists on C47, would the Council decide to preserve this rare heritage and make it accessible to the public or decide to build over it anyway?’

 

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee

 

‘There is no evidence at the present time which suggest that site C47 is not developable. In response to previous questions regarding potential GIN mines, the site promoter has provided a heritage note which has been shared with Mr Elton. This notes that there are no features which match the description of a GIN mine in the Historic Environments Records and that “even if the remains of a horse gin are present, they would not affect the deliverability of the site for the quantum of development proposed”.

 

There has not been any evidence presented to date that demonstrates that land stability is likely to be an issue of this site. 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.’

 

In response to a supplementary question asking whether the Council would reduce Section 106 requirements or financially support developers regarding subsidence or gas hazards, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager replied that this would be justified case-by-case and included in the Local Plan as needed.

 

Question from Ms G Baker

 

‘100 Treasures of Charnwood Forest

 

Charnwood Forest Geopark produces the official 100 Treasures of Charnwood Forest. 14 of those treasures are historical sites. The probable Iron Age/Roman monument situated within C47 is listed as one of those treasured sites. It is located close to a current footpath at the top of a hill, commanding stunning views of the local countryside. It is also within easy walking distance of Swannington Incline, the Ivanhoe Way and Meadow Barn café. It has a huge potential as a future tourist attraction and as an asset for the area.

 

There are numerous planning and legal concerns attached to developing sites of historical significance, which include: Paragraph 194 -208 of the National Planning Policy framework (NPPF), The Ancient monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 and the Historic Environment Records (HER).

 

Proceeding with development on the site of probable national importance may expose the Council, reputational damage and potential judicial review.

Practical and development challenges will include design constraints, substantial delays, uncertainty and additional costs. Promoters and Developers are likely to say that these heritage concerns can easily be accommodated, when the reality is that their priority is to maximize profits.

 

I accept that many of these concerns would normally be addressed at the planning stage. However, when numerous planning issues emerge at this stage of the process, inclusion within your strategy plan must become untenable. I would therefore ask again why this site remain within the plan, when others with far fewer planning issues have been removed or not included in the plan?’

 

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee

 

‘The Charnwood Forest Geopark identifies a D-Shaped enclosure near Whitwick as one of 100 Treasures of the Charnwood Forest Geopark. No further details are provided. The County Council’s Heritage Team Manager has previously advised that he considered that an appraisal undertaken on behalf of the site promoter was satisfactory and that the need for mitigation could be secured by condition on a planning application, consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

In respect of sites where it has previously been decided to not include them in the plan, the reasons are set out in various reports to, and decisions of, this Committee.’

 

A supplementary question was asked about the historical significance of sites such as the Iron Age monument at C47. The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager replied that he was not aware of other sites of similar significance and would have to look into the matter further. In terms of this particular site it was noted that it was not a formally designated heritage asset.

 

Question from Ms M Baxter

 

‘I would like to put forward a question regarding proposed building off Torrington Avenue/Hall lane will the proposed houses be separate to current housing regarding sewage? We have problems now with smell/ blockages from the drains?’

 

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee

 

‘The exact details of how any development will be served in respect of drainage of sewage will be addressed at the planning application stage.’

 

Question from Mr C Taylor

 

‘At a previous meeting of this Committee in on 16 December 2024, you were asked why C76 Meadow Lane, C 82 Greenhill Farm and C57 Loughborough Road were not included within the plan. Having studied your latest Strategic Housing Availability Document recently, those 3 sites have still have far fewer potential planning issues than West Whitwick. Your response to the question, at the time, was that:

 

·       1 It was the decision of the Local Plan Committee that C76, Meadow Lane should be removed from the plan. In other words a political decision taken against the advice of your Officer:

·       2 You stated that C57 was situated some distance from the centre of Whitwick at the top of a hill, not accessible for older people. A successful planning application has subsequently been submitted for land opposite the site, which is slightly further from the centre of Whitwick. A bus service now passes close to C57 and I fail to see the difference to the 2 sites:

·       3 You were unable to recall why site C82 had not been included in the plan at the time.

The minutes of that meeting did not reflect all of the above, but the transcript of the live stream does. The committee voted against amending those minutes to reflect the answers above at the subsequent meeting on 29 January 2025.

 

Are you able to explain to me now why C57 and C82 have not been included within the plan?’

 

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee

 

‘Whilst it is recognised that a new bus service now serves part of Loughborough Road there are also ecological and landscape issues associated with site C57, which was partly why it was previously dismissed at appeal. The landscape appraisal prepared to support the Local Plan identifies that this site lies within a parcel that is of high landscape sensitivity and medium-high visual sensitivity. The permission on the opposite side of Loughborough Road was for a small number of dwellings (5) and was to help meet the needs for self and custom build dwellings.

 

In respect of site C82 this also lies within the Charnwood Forest and is poorly related to services and facilities. It is also necessary to demonstrate likely deliverability of any site. It is some time since this site was promoted and there has not been any representations from the landowner to any recent consultations and nor has the Council been made aware that there is any developer interest in the site.’

 

A supplementary question was asked about whether discussions with Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council could help meet the Council’s quota for strategic warehousing and housing. The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager confirmed initial conversations had occurred but the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan lacked sufficient information to show that what was proposed was likely to be deliverable.

 

Question from Mr A Priestley

 

‘As Chairman of Kegworth Parish council I find it wholly inappropriate and unacceptable that at this very late stage that 40ha of additional employment land (EMP97) can be allocated in our Parish with zero advanced information and zero opportunity for the Parish council to formally apply any consideration or scrutiny. It would seem the lions share of strategic employment land for the entire County in being allocated within or adjacent to the boundaries of our small Ancient village which is rapid becoming encircled by large concentrations of B8 sheds.

 

Does this Committee believe this employment land allocations without prior consultation is a fair and reasonable process that is not vulnerable to judicial review?’

 

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee

 

‘The issue of possible consultation in respect of additional sites for strategic distribution is addressed at paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 of item 6 of the Committee Report. As set out in the report there would ideally be some further consultation under Regulation 18. However, the Council is required to submit the Local Plan for Examination by December 2026 and therefore a further additional consultation is not considered to be feasible having regard to resources, if this deadline is to be met.

 

This is a matter for members of the Committee to debate when they consider Item 6 on the agenda.’

 

A supplementary question was asked about whether there was an immediate need for development on site EMP97 in Kegworth. The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager explained the importance of meeting Government-imposed deadlines for the submission of the Local Plan and noted the soundness of the site would be further tested.

 

Question from Mr R Brackenbury

 

‘What evidence demonstrates that the relying solely on the existing “countryside policy” will be sufficient to prevent coalescence between Diseworth and the proposed Isley Woodhouse settlement and Freeport-based industrial shed development?’

 

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee

 

‘The Council has previously resisted development elsewhere in similar situations where it has relied upon the existing countryside policy(S3) which is continued into new policy (S4). For example, a proposed development between Castle Donington and Lockington was successfully defended at appeal with refence to existing policy S3 (17/01136/OUTM).’

 

A supplementary question was asked regarding the absence of a defined separation area between Diseworth and the proposed new settlement. The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager explained that existing policies already ensure adequate separation and therefore a specific designation was considered unnecessary, but the issue was addressed elsewhere on the agenda.

 

Question from Miss S Rojewska

 

‘In relation to site C19a and further developments on Stephenson Way and Broom Leys Road, there are barn owls nesting in holly hayes wood and swifts/swallows in the meadows. There are also badgers in the location and bats. The proposed site is within a kilometre of this area and would therefore impact on these protected species, What mitigation and protection will be provided as part of the development?’

 

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee

 

‘Draft policy En1 (Nature conservation/biodiversity net gain) addresses the need to ensure that new development does not adversely affect known sites of significance for nature conservation value. This will be addressed as part of any future planning applications.’

 

A supplementary question was asked which questioned whether the Council could guarantee proposed developments would have little impact on biodiversity. The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager responded that, while this could not be guaranteed, co-ordination of developments would be sought through policies to minimise impact.

 

Question from Mr R Pritchard

 

‘In the light of the proposed designation of sites EMP 73(part) and EMP97 North of Kegworth as strategic warehousing so long after the Regulation 18 consultation on the Draft Local Plan, could the Council tell me what due diligence has been followed in relation to the Kegworth Limits of Development on the North side and specifically the impact of the proposed sites, together, potentially, with the as-yet-undetermined planning application for a strategic warehouse at the former RBS site, on impending M1 Junction 24 development and the viability of housing site K11 which has planning permission for 250 homes and would be encircled by B2/B8 warehouses as a result?’

 

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee

 

‘Throughout the period that the Local Plan is being prepared it is necessary to have regard to evidence and information that emerges. A failure to do so risks the plan not being found to be sound at Examination. The evidence in respect of the need for large scale warehousing has been in preparation for some time. The planning application south of the A6 on the former RBS site will be judged on its own merits in due course.’

 

In response to a supplementary question expressing concern about Kegworth being surrounded by large warehouse developments, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager stated that this issue would be addressed through the planning application process rather than the Local Plan.

 

Question from Mr A Palmer

 

‘Either end of hall lane is terrible at busy times as it is. More cars will only add to this. Cars from hall lane to city of dan can be queueing up to Varus shop. The opposite end also gets busy. This sends traffic down George Street, which is extremely narrow with poor access onto Hermitage Road. What plans are being developed for managing the extra traffic, such as traffic surveys?’

 

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee

 

‘Transport modelling is currently being undertaken through work with the County Highway Authority to assess the impact of development and to identify any mitigation measures. The proposed policy considered elsewhere on tonight’s agenda (item 7) requires the provision of a road linking Hall Lane to Stephenson Way to minimisethe impact upon the existing road network.’

 

In response to a supplementary question expressing concern that the proposed policy in item 7 of the agenda in respect of the Coalville Urban Area Strategic Development Area would increase congestion on Hall Lane. The Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager commented on the importance of waiting for the outcome of ongoing transport modelling work and noted the ease to accommodate for existing roads.

 

Question from Ms B Whelton

 

‘Assuming the council have exhausted all of the brown field sites in North West Leicestershire for housing before building on green spaces would the Council consider the land behind Stephenson College as an area for homes given it has access to the A511?’

 

Response from the Chair of the Local Plan Committee

 

‘It is not clear as to which exact area is being referred to. However, if it is referring to land to the west of Stephenson College this particular area has not been promoted to the Council as a potential site for development.’

 

In response to a supplementary question asking if there any were brown field sites being considered for development near the A511, the Planning Policy and Land Charges Team Manager responded that the area has not been promoted for development, and that it would be a high risk if this was to be included in the Local Plan at this stage.