Officers from the planning service will be in attendance to give a presentation which will give a general introduction on planning policy, in particular in relation to conservation areas and also to draw resident’s attention to any significant planning matters in the ward.
Minutes:
Ian Jordan, Senior Planner, and James Simmins, Building Conservation Officer from Leicester City Council were both in attendance to provide information in relation to planning policy, conservation areas, and to discuss any significant planning matters raised by those present.
Ian provided an overview of the Planning Policy team and detailed ways in which members of the public can help to influence planning matters. The three areas of policy which were currently in place to help determine planning applications were as follows:
(i) The Planning Policy Framework
(ii) The City of Leicester Local Plan
(iii) The Core Strategy
It was noted that work was being undertaken to combine (ii) and (iii) into one document to simplify matters of strategic planning policy and to cover all planning matters. In terms of present planning priorities, he spoke of the importance in identifying the current levels of housing need in and around Leicester. Ian also explained that the City Council was to launch an options consultation, thereby seeking the public’s views on matters of priority.
James gave greater detail behind his role. He stated that there were two conservation areas within the Knighton Ward; the Stoneygate Conservation Area and the Knighton Village Conservation Area. It was the role of he and colleagues to take conservational and historical factors into consideration when determining planning applications. Planning Applications that fell within conservation areas were required to be advertised within the Leicester Mercury, and signs informing residents of such applications were to be erected for a period of at least 21 days. It was noted that conservation areas were not exempt from development, but it was noted that the Stoneygate Conservation Area was covered by an Article 4 directive, which generally restricted planning development.
A discussion followed which in part encompassed recent planning applications that had been submitted, as well as a discussion around the general role and powers of developers and applications submitted on or behalf of large companies and organisations.
On this particular point, several residents were of the view that the planning system was predominantly developer-led, and that there a greater degree of honesty and clarity in planning processes was required. Ian maintained that the City Council treated all who engaged in planning processes equally and fairly, and did not share the view that the Planning Authority’s role was dwarfed to that played by developers.
Several questions were raised in relation to communicating forthcoming planning applications, and how views were established by officers around the consultative sample sizes. James explained that this predominantly depended on the size and location of a particular planning application, but that many factors that could potentially affect residents by planning applications were taken into consideration when notifying those affected. In answer to a specific point, officers agreed that those who lived on the opposite side of a road to a particular application would ordinarily be directly consulted.
Those present were generally of the view that there was a need an enhancement of community and neighbourhood powers in influencing the outcome of planning applications. Many felt that this would be particularly useful when responding to large scale planning matters such those at College Court and the proposal by Tesco on Queens Road. Ian gave detail of the notion of Neighbourhood Plans, which could be formed by groups of at least twenty nominated people. There were presently no Neighbourhood Plans in Leicester. It was noted however, that following the recent planning application process regarding College Court, a Knighton Society had been established, and that it was within the society’s aims to formulate a Neighbourhood Plan. Should residents wish to find out more about the newly established Knighton Society, they were asked to contact Knighton@live.co.uk.
A member of the public requested that a map be provided that detailed the locations of those homes in multiple occupation within Knighton. Concern was raised generally in respect of the perceived loss of family houses in the Ward. Officers stated that efforts were made to ensure that streets generally encompassed a mixed community.
A member of the public asked for an overview of the delegated power function. In response, James explained that many planning matters could be determined by Officers under Delegated Powers, and that of these, any that received no objections could be simply granted, or if colleagues within the Conservation and Highways Sections recommended refusal, planning officers could therefore refuse. Should an application receive six or more objections, then it would be subjected to consideration by the Planning and Development Control Committee. In response to a general point in relation to taking decisions contrary to officer advice, James explained that if a planning application was refused and the applicant won on appeal, the City Council were likely to incur significant costs.
Councillor Moore stated that she was both a resident of Knighton and a Ward Councillor who was a Member of the Planning and Development Control Committee. She expressed sympathy towards those who requested greater clarity around local planning legislation and equally explained that she was aware of the tensions and pressure on the planning department to adhere to national planning guidance, including looking for solutions to the shortage of housing units.
Several residents along with Councillor Grant stated that the Head of Planning had been specifically invited to attend this meeting, and although the officers present had responded to all questions and queries raised, it was felt that the Head of Planning was required to be present to respond to some of the points raised that could not be fully answered. Many were of the view that the Head of Planning should be invited to attend the subsequent Ward Meeting
RESOLVED:
That the Head of Planning be asked to attend the subsequent Community Meeting to provide direct answers to queries raised by residents, and to outline greater detail of existing planning processes and ways in which the public can influence and participate in planning matters.