Agenda item

The Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive concerning the advice to be submitted to the East Midlands Regional Assembly on housing provision in Leicestershire. A copy of the report marked ‘D’ is filed with these minutes.

 

The Commission also considered written comments that had been submitted by the following members, copies of which are also filed with these minutes:

 

            Mrs. J. A. Dickinson CC

            Mr. M. J. Hunt CC

            Mr. E. F. White CC

 

Mr. E. F. White CC attended the meeting under the Sensitive Issues Procedure and with the permission of the Chairman spoke on this matter. He urged the Commission to note and submit the concerns outlined in his written submission to the Cabinet.

 

During the discussion on this matter the following concerns were raised by members:

 

·                    The limited time available to members to consider the document and consult with local constituents in order to make informed comments.

 

·                    The lack of information on the criteria used to determine the proposed RSS housing allocation in relation to each district.

 

·                    The lack of clear reasons for moving away from the allocations previously determined under option 2B.

 

·                    The levels of involvement of District Councils in arriving at the proposed housing allocation and in identifying suitable locations for urban extensions.

 

·                    The lack of consultation and a formal decision to submit a Growth Point Bid, with the consequence that the decision as to the location of housing developments now appear to be determined at regional rather than local level.

 

In response to the concerns expressed members were advised as follows:-

 

·                    The briefing for Members in July had covered most of the issues raised in the report.  The main development since then had been the selection from a longer list of the locations of urban extensions which took account primarily of infrastructure constraints.  For example urban expansion to the east of the Leicester and Leicestershire Urban Area had been rejected because the costs of transport improvements were too high.

·                    In providing advice to the Regional Assembly the County Council would reserve its position to consider, and if appropriate, amend its advice, in the light of the further assessment work for example on transport capacity and potential improvements.

·                    The previous allocation under Option 2B had not been agreed by all District Councils.  These allocations were based on historic population growth and build rate trends which reflected the allocation of land in locations considered appropriate under previous planning strategies and did not reflect the capacity of the infrastructure to support developments.

·                    Discussions had been held with District Councils and none supported large scale growth in their areas.

·                    There were problems of congestion in all parts of the County although solutions are considered to be more achievable in those areas identified for major urban extensions than in other areas.  The further testing of these locations would support or disprove this position.

·                    The focus on urban extensions would enable development in larger blocks and thereby enable the Council to access Growth Point funding for infrastructure improvements.  This approach would improve the prospects of the Council in accessing developer contributions.

·                    Even without the Growth Point funding officers would still recommend large scale development as this was the only way to support development with effective infrastructure through public investment and developer contributions.

 

It was moved by the Chairman and seconded:-

 

“a)       That the comments submitted by Mrs. Dickinson, Mr. Hunt and Mr. White be noted and forwarded to the Cabinet.

 

b)         That the Cabinet be advised that the Commission has grave concerns about the lack of clear information relating to the criteria used to justify changes in housing allocations from Option 2B to the new RSS figures and asks the Cabinet to consider further whether the proposed advice to the Regional Assembly is still appropriate;

 

c)         That the Cabinet be further advised that the Commission is concerned about the capacity of District Councils to support the proposed RSS developments and the lack of certainty in funding for making infrastructure improvements, including improvements to transport provision and highways.”

 

The motion was put in parts, Parts (a) and (c) were put and carried unanimously. Part (b) was put and carried 8 members voting for that part of the motion and 2 against.