Agenda item

A set of slides is attached which will be presented at the meeting.

A report on the Housing Infrastructure Fund Bids is being considered by the Cabinet on 18 December, this will be made available to members before the Commission meeting.

The Commission considered a presentation and report from the Director of Environment and Transport which outlined proposals for two Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) bids, one relating to the southern section of the Melton Mowbray Distributor Road and a second for a South West Leicestershire Growth Area.  The report would be considered by the Cabinet on 18 December.  A copy of the report and the slides forming the presentation, marked ‘Agenda Item 8’, is filed with these minutes.

In introducing the report, the Director of Environment and Transport and the Leader of the Council, Mr N J Rushton CC, advised members of the Commission that the HIF bids sought funding for infrastructure to support housing development.  The details of both housing development and the routes for proposed new roads would be determined through the Local Plan processes of the relevant district councils and would be subject to the usual consultation processes.  However, if the bids were not submitted, there was a risk that housing developments would still go ahead but that they would be unsupported by infrastructure.

Mrs Maggie Wright CC, local member for the Stoney Stanton and Croft Electoral Division, emphasised the overwhelming concern in the local area with regard to the massive size of proposed developments.  It would be important to stress to local people that these proposals represented potential opportunities and nothing had yet been determined.  However, should developments such as the proposed Hinckley Strategic Rail Freight Interchange go ahead, the survival of nearby villages would depend on the provision of appropriate infrastructure.  The existing road network was already struggling, there were traffic enforcement cameras in Sharnford and most villages had traffic monitoring groups.  Mrs Wright felt that it was frustrating that the Strategic Rail Freight Interchange application would be determined by the Secretary of State rather than the local authority and urged the County Council to support nearby villages with the best option.

Arising from discussion the following points were raised:-

(i)          It was acknowledged that the timing for submission of the bids was difficult, as not all district councils had signed up to the Strategic Growth Plan yet.  However, it was emphasised that the submission of bids did not represent the final decision on whether the proposed infrastructure should be developed.  If the bids to the HIF were successful, a further report would be submitted to the Cabinet to seek approval for the developments to proceed.

(ii)         In the event that funding was awarded to the County Council, this would be conditional on successful planning applications to deliver the anticipated housing growth.  The bid process could not override local planning processes.  It was also noted that any funding awarded from the HIF would have to be drawn down by 2022/23.

(iii)       Concern was expressed that addition of south facing slip roads at Junction 2 of the M69 had previously been discounted because of the impact on traffic through local villages.  Clarity was also sought regarding the location of the link improvement around Stoney Stanton and Sapcote.  It was confirmed that a link road was required to mitigate the impact of the south facing slip roads and to prevent excessive amounts of traffic going through villages near Junction 2 of the M69.  The exact location of the road had not yet been determined and would be subject to public consultation.

(iv)       Clarity regarding the size and scope of the South West Leicestershire Growth Area was sought.  The Commission was advised that the Growth Area was not a firm proposal being put forward by the County Council but an illustration that there was market interest in developing this area.  Without an indication of market support a bid would not be successful. 

(v)        It was confirmed that the Southern Gateway proposal had been removed from the Strategic Growth Plan.  This terminology would be removed from future iterations of the HIF bid.

(vi)       The proposal for a spine road linked to a proposed new development reflected the local desire in south west Leicestershire for improved rail connections.  This was a potential opportunity, dependent upon the success of the application for the Strategic Rail Freight Interchange near Hinckley, rather than a definite proposal.

(vii)     There was some support for the principle of developing infrastructure before housing development took place.  However, it would be important to ensure that housing reflected the economic opportunities in the local area to reduce the risk of increased commuting and congestion.  The Commission was assured that the Strategic Growth Plan and HIF bid process gave the County and District Councils the best opportunity to influence housing development in this way.  Local authorities could add value to the process by ensuring developments were in line with affordable homes policies.

(viii)    Member suggested that the HIF bid process would enable appropriate mitigations to be put in place in response to housing development.  For example if the proposed Strategic Rail Freight Interchange was taken forward, infrastructure would be needed to help control air quality and reduce traffic congestion in nearby villages.  In addition, large developments would have an impact on the wider area which would also need to be addressed.

Mr D C Bill CC asked to place on record his opposition to the HIF Bid for the South West Leicestershire Growth Area and his concerns about the cumulative impact of the proposal, along with the proposed Hinckley Strategic Rail Freight Interchange and A46 Expressway, on the local area.  He was also disappointed in the lack of clarity relating to the proposal, particularly the map that had been provided in the report.   Mr Bill felt that the proposals were likely to result in an over-provision of housing, based on the latest population estimates.  He would prefer the county to develop in a way that suited its residents.

RESOLVED:

(a)  That the comments now made be submitted to the Cabinet for consideration at its meeting on 18 December;

(b)  That, should the HIF bids be successful, a further report be submitted to the Scrutiny Commission outlining the next steps in the process.