Question 3

No

Representation ID: 8290

Received: 05/11/2021

Respondent: dr Neil Burton

Get ahead of the game! Bring the green agenda to the fore in the guidance. Eg no gas connection (heat pumps), water conservation measures, solar PV fitted as standard along with car charging points (roof orientation), porous driveways, pedestrian/cycle ways to community facilities and town centre, etc.

Yes

Representation ID: 8298

Received: 05/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Jones

The requirement is clear and explicit in terms of developer liability. There are also clear statements on public access and independent evaluation which will further aid transparency compared to the current opaque process.

Yes

Representation ID: 8316

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Limited

Agent: Boyer Planning Ltd

The SPD should be mindful of the combined contribution and viability impact of conditions and planning obligations.

No

Representation ID: 8331

Received: 14/12/2021

Respondent: Leicestershire County Council

The county council is concerned that HDC may prioritise contributions due to it and perhaps waive contributions due to the county council in the event of any viability challenges; this is not specifically addressed and the only example mentioned relates to affordable housing, which is a district specific function. Further clarity and assurances on this would be appreciated.

In the event that there is a viability challenge against the county councils’ requests, early engagement with the county councils Planning Obligations Team is very much welcomed and encouraged.

No

Representation ID: 8337

Received: 17/12/2021

Respondent: William Davis

Updates are required to paragraph 3.12, 3.21 and 3.25. Paragraph 3.24 is supported.

No

Representation ID: 8347

Received: 17/12/2021

Respondent: LUTTERWORTH TOWN COUNCIL Parish Council

No. In the previous consultation, there were numerous comments regarding the need to consult with local communities about local needs. We fully support the proposals agreed at the Cabinet Meeting of 10th May 2021, particularly Appendix A and the reference to consultation, and on 30th June 2021 we were assured by the Leader and Chief Executive that ALL S106 agreements would be formed following consultation with the relevant local Parish and Town Councils. This has not happened, and it needs to in order to generate trust and integrity in the system.

Yes

Representation ID: 8364

Received: 15/12/2021

Respondent: Leicester City Council

The section on Cross Boundary Applications is very general. It is suggested that reference to Leicester City is required as being responsible for all functions in the City
(including Highways), and 3rd party contributions may also be sought for infrastructure if there are impacts within the City where development is near the City boundary.

Yes

Representation ID: 8366

Received: 15/12/2021

Respondent: Leicester City Council

Finally, our last comment relates section 3.13: ‘Where an application site lies partially within a neighbouring local authority area, Harborough Council would seek to co-ordinate proportionate responses in relation to planning obligations as far as possible. However, if agreement cannot be reached the Council will seek obligations relating to the part of the site which lies within its administrative boundary.’ Also, paragraph 3.16 only refers to County as being responsible for highways and transportation, with no reference to the City.

This could leave the City Council in a position where a substantial contribution towards appropriate mitigation measures is warranted. However, under the policy as currently written the developer could argue that they would prioritise contributions within Harborough District first and argue against payment for anything outside HDC. In such a case, the City Council may have no alternative other than to object to the application.

Therefore, it is suggested that the phrase “partially within a neighbouring local authority area" needs redrafting. For example, “partially within or having a substantial impact on services or the environment of a neighbouring local authority area” would be better.