Agenda item

Report of the Head of Planning and Infrastructure

The Planning Policy Team Manager presented the report to Members. He drew Members attention to the additional papers that had been circulated and advised that Cabinet had considered the report at its meeting on the 23 July 2020. Following a submission of a question from Councillor D Bigby to that meeting, Cabinet agreed to amend objectives 2, 3 and 10 as set out in Councillor R Ashman’s response. He informed Members that, due to the Cabinet decision, they were being asked to note the decision of Cabinet with respect of the Draft Local Plan Objectives taking account of the changes to Objectives 2, 3 and 10 as set out on the additional paper.

Councillor D Bigby explained to the committee why he had submitted the question to Cabinet rather than consideration at the Committee first. He was pleased that Cabinet agreed the changes to objectives 2, 3 and 10 and, that the Council was making progress in developing the framework for the substantive review. He welcomed the new objective 7 that laid down the need to respond to the Climate Emergency but expressed disappointment that Cabinet had rejected the suggestions for objective 5. He fully understood that the District operated in the national and international economic framework and was sure that all wanted a thriving economy, with high standard working environments. He acknowledged that the impact of COVID would bring challenges to maintaining employment in the district along with the limitations within the Local Plan that had been imposed by national legislation. He agreed that thriving local businesses were necessary to the survival of communities, he disputed the assumption that the economic interests of businesses in general, were compatible with the economic interest of local residents. He felt that the continuation of large warehouses being built in the district was not in the interest of the community, which was weighed against the environmental impact. He stated that the Portfolio Holder’s response had sited paragraph 8 of the NPPF, with the last part having caught the Council out. He advised that he had tried to come up with a form of words that would improve the objective, however he had not been able to find any suitable words to suit it. He stated that, unless any other member could suggest some wording, he would support the recommendation as amended by the agreed changes, having had some influence on them.

The Planning Policy Team Manager advised that he appreciated the questions that were submitted by Councillor D Bigby. He noted that a consultation would then be held on the draft objectives and that there was a possibility that an amendment to objective 5 could come through that way, therefore the position regarding objective 5 was not set in stone.

Councillor J Legrys raised the announcement from HMG and the additional £2billion transport funds to local councils for including walking and cycling and put forward a slight addition to objective 4. The wording was:-

In light of HMG recent announcement to provide £2bn transport funding distributed to authorities for schemes including walking and cycling;

 The Local Plan Review to plan for

• specific off-highway walking and cycling routes within NWL
• with particular consideration made to safeguard land for the provision of segregated off-highway walking/cycling routes to and from employment growth areas
• and an overall focus on the improvement of inter-community off-highway interconnectivity.

The Planning Policy Team Manager stated that the Council would need to show that it was committed to and would be able to deliver the proposal, and if it could not then it would be very likely that it would not be supported by the inspector. He suggested that the objective, as it stood would not preclude doing the proposal, but there was nothing specific on the table.

Councillor J Legrys was concerned that the point of the Local Plan was to shape the community for future years and that there was funding available to provide safer routes for walking and cycling. He felt that, if a network was not planned for or included in the plan, like schools and health centres, then the infrastructure would not be there in the future and could be blocked by future development sites.

The Planning Policy Team Manager advised that the Council had cycling strategies in place for Coalville and Ashby and, footpaths were a County function. He stated that, linking the Local Plan to the strategies could be looked into and how best to put appropriate policies in place to fund them. He informed Members that the strategies could be used to put in bids for the funding but that would be notwithstanding the Local Plan.

Councillor J Legrys stated that with divided responsibility, the councils needed to work together in the providing of safer routes and, that when the document went out for consultation, the public would raise the issue then, adding that the Council needed to be clear on what it was consulting on. He highlighted that HMG were very keen to push walking and cycling in the current climate. He was keen to have a specific point in relation to the matter and moved a motion to include the wording in objective 4.

Councillor J Bridges stated that, in principle, he agreed with Councillor J Legrys but was unsure how it could be incorporated.

The Planning Policy Team Manager reminded members that the objectives were fairly high level and were not site specific. He did not rule out identifying routes, but it needed to be clear that it could be delivered. However, if the matter was something that the committee felt strongly about he suggested that wording along the lines of “Including, where appropriate off-site /off- highway routes” be included to the end of objective 4. In terms of the wording suggested by Councillor J Legrys, he advised that the first point was along the terms of what he had suggested but the next two were too detailed for an objective.

Councillor D Bigby stated that the issue raised by Councillor J Legrys was important and asked if it would be possible to add some wording to objective 4 to include segregated off-highway paths and then include the full text moved by Councillor J Legrys as an addition to the recommendation in the report. He highlighted that there was no cycle strategy for the district and that was what was need to be captured in the objective.

Councillor R Johnson stated that in relation to objectives 10 and 12 and the inflation in housing numbers, that there would be no area of separation between Hugglescote and Ellistown if development continued in that area. He highlighted that residents were concerned about losing their identities and his concern was the number of hedges that were being ripped out by developers.

Councillor T Saffell stated that he agreed with Councillor J Legrys that the wording being put into the plan would make the Council think about the matter. He noted that it was a Government initiative with money available for things that were needed, but agreed that the wording needed to be shortened.

In response to questions from Councillor V Richichi, the Planning Policy Team Manager advised that “Picked-up” related to the Council Delivery Plan reference and why there should be a quality objective. In relation to build quality and cost, that it was a balance that needed to be considered and it was how it would be achieved.

Councillor D Harrison stated that there was a consensus to include something about the matter raised by Councillor J Legrys, but it needed to be done correctly as an important principle to help the future health and wellbeing of the community.

Councillor J Bridges summoned up the discussion that had taken place and advised that anything that was amended by the committee would go back to Cabinet for approval and then back to the committee before the consultation began.

It was moved by Councillor J Legrys that a form of additional wording for objective 4 be drafted by the Planning Policy Team Manager in consultation with the Chairman, proposer and seconder and circulated to members of the committee to agree. The amendment would then be proposed to Cabinet for agreement, before coming back to Local Plan Committee prior to public consultation. It was seconded by Councillor D Bigby.

RESOLVED THAT:

A form of additional wording for objective 4 be drafted by the Planning Policy Team Manager in consultation with the Chairman, proposer and seconder and, circulated to members of the committee to agree. The amendment would then be proposed to Cabinet for agreement, before coming back to Local Plan Committee prior to public consultation.