Planning Obligations SPD 2021

Yes

Representation ID: 8363

Received: 15/12/2021

Respondent: Leicester City Council

Section 2.9 – refers to the two-tier system in the County, with responsibilities set out for
the District and Boroughs, and County being mentioned as responsible for highways.

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: 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: 8365

Received: 15/12/2021

Respondent: Leicester City Council

Section 14 provides a list of Leicestershire County Council Services. Similar to the response set out for Question 1 and Question 3, in that the City Council is not mentioned as a neighbouring Highway Authority. This section does specifically refer to Leicestershire’s Planning Obligation Policy, but as there is reference to Scraptoft North SDA, should it not also give reference to Leicester City Council services?

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.