Agenda item

The Director of Planning, Development and Transportation submits a report and presentation outlining the main strategies and policies of the draft local plan for public consultation in January/February 2020. The Committee is recommended to note the key local plan strategies and policies, and provisions for consultation, and pass any comments to the Director for consideration.

The Director of Planning, Development and Transportation submitted a report outlining the main strategies and policies of the draft local plan for public consultation in January / February 2020.

The Team Leader (Generic Planning) introduced the report and gave a presentation on the draft local plan, (a copy of which had been circulated with the agenda papers), explaining that:

·           The detail of the strategies and policies would be available for the public consultation;

·           The city’s boundaries were very tight, so the Council worked closely with neighbouring authorities.  There also were a number of cross-boundary issues that needed to be addressed;

·           Housing need had been calculated on the basis of a national methodology taking account of factors such as projected births, deaths and migration;

·           Housing was a key issue for the city and neighbouring districts, particularly as it was unlikely to be possible to deliver the full extent of housing needed in the city.  At present, it was anticipated that there would be a shortfall of 7,742, which would be redistributed through agreement with neighbouring district councils;

·           The Council projected around 150 “windfall” dwellings each year that could be used for housing, (for example, at the backs of existing houses).  Private landowners also had put forward sites for inclusion in the housing allocations;

·           It was important to get the right balance between public open space and the need for housing.  Under current proposals, some green space and green wedge would be lost, (for example, through development on part of a site while having open space on the rest of it), but the details of this would not be released until the final local plan was agreed;

·           At present, there were five proposed new school allocations in the draft local plan; and

·           Through the public consultation, suggestions would be invited of things to be included in Character Area Detailed Guidance.

Some concern was expressed about the amount of green field sites that could be lost, as there did not appear to be a specific target to encourage new house building on brownfield sites.  It also was suggested that use of greenfield sites by neighbouring authorities could result in more traffic coming in to the city, with resultant increases in congestion and pollution.  To reduce the potential impact of this, it was suggested that increasing the height of good quality developments could be considered, particularly in central locations, although using brownfield sites would be preferable.

In reply, the City Mayor explained that priority was being given to development on brownfield sites.  However, Leicester was different to many other former industrial cities in that it had very tight boundaries and had already used many of its brownfield sites.  Growth would be cross-boundary, so this Council needed to continue to work very closely with the neighbouring district councils.  Suggested brownfield sites would be put forward in the draft local plan as suitable for development, but in the meantime any suggestions from Members for sites that could be used would be welcomed.

Members queried whether it was accurate that the city would run out of space for development.  In reply, the Head of Planning reiterated that the city had a comparatively restricted amount of brownfield sites available for development, some of which had problems such as flooding or contaminated land.  To help alleviate this, neighbouring district councils would be accepting approximately one-third of the city’s projected growth up to 2031.  After that. the Strategic Growth Plan indicated the potential to accept up to approximately two-thirds.

Members also suggested that it would be useful to have a definition of brownfield sites and information on what control the Council could have over housing and employment developments on them.

The Committee was reminded that a suggestion had been made in a previous consultation that a greenfield site could be considered for use as a sculpture park, as this could encourage people to come to the city.

Members noted that the land at Leicester General Hospital identified as a strategic housing site was in public, not in private, ownership.  There already had been opposition to the development of this land for housing and the loss of health use.  It therefore was suggested that it was inappropriate to include this in the local plan as a confirmed strategic housing site at this time.

The City Mayor acknowledged that further discussion about the site was needed, but explained that was the purpose of this consultation.  As a general principle, the Council needed to be prepared to intervene when the market failed to regenerate sites.  The Council had powers of compulsory purchase, which sometimes needed to be used boldly.

The following points also were made in discussion:

o    A stronger commitment to supporting progress towards carbon neutrality and climate-adaptation should be included in the draft local plan;

o    The introduction of internal space standards for student accommodation and houses in multiple occupation were welcomed, but caution was expressed pending receipt of the details of these standards;

o    Housing officers were considering how unused privately-owned houses could be brought back in to use;

o    Council housing would be part of the new housing provision set out in the local plan;

o    A lot of young people could not afford “affordable housing”, so it would be useful to have a definition of what was considered to be affordable, (for example, the price range);

o    Prohibiting development above certain heights was understandable for Character Areas, but could be inappropriate for other areas.  Further debate on this therefore should be held;

o    The area around St George’s Churchyard contained a lot of heritage assets that needed to be protected;

o    The proposed number of additional units for the central development area was not ambitious enough;

o    Currently there were industrial units being developed in the centre of the city and housing away from the centre.  This should be reversed, so that industrial units were on the periphery.  This would bring people in to the city and large vehicles would not have to come in to the city centre to service the units.  Transport links also would need to be considered to improve the viability of this approach;

o    If land needed to be improved in order that it could be used for housing or employment purposes, did the Council have any powers to require owners to do this or to acquire the land itself?

o    Officers were already undertaking some detailed work on employment sites in the city.  Some of these were well designed and were listed, so some flexibility was exercised on allowing them to be converted to housing, (despite being identified as employment sites), in order to retain them;

o    It was predicted that the population would increase, so the local plan would need to include measures to ensure that infrastructure provision was appropriate, (for example, the appropriate number of schools and health centres).  Five new school sites were proposed, three of which were already the subject of planning applications, and the Council was in dialogue with the Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group and Hospital Trust regarding health provision;

o    Improvements were needed to the former Imperial Typewriters building in East Park Road;

o    Although Section 106 funding was mentioned, viability assessment indicated scope for this was limited; and

o    Nothing would be included in the local plan that could not be demonstrated as deliverable.

AGREED:

1)     That the report and presentation be received and noted; and

2)     That the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation be asked to take the comments recorded above in to account in the preparation of the draft local plan 2019-2036 for public consultation.