Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

We consider that the following amendments would make the policy sound, as per the requirements set out at paragraph 36 of the NPPF:
• Plan for 1,176 dwellings per annum to account for evidenced local housing needs, affordable housing needs, and the unmet needs of Leicester and Leicestershire, rather than the proposed 657 dwellings per year between 2020 to 2036 and 534 dwellings per year between 2036 to 2041
• Increase the capacity of Site BA1 from 475 dwellings to 550 dwellings, given the Site is evidenced to be the most suitable and sustainable location for development in Broughton Astley. This would also contribute an additional 75 dwellings towards the evidenced needs for 1,176 dwellings.

Subject to the above minor modifications, IM Land would be supportive of this policy.

Please see attached representations document re: the site at Land off Frolesworth Road, Broughton Astley.

Please also see attached representations document re: the site at Land off Frolesworth Road, Broughton Astley.

1.1 Policy HN01 – Housing Need: Affordable Housing
Paragraph 66 of the NPPF informs that where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed, planning policies and decisions should expect that the mix of affordable housing required meets identified local needs, across Social Rent, other affordable housing for rent and affordable home ownership tenures.

Policy HN01 sets out that to meet the need for affordable housing (40%) of the total number of homes in residential developments of 10 or more dwellings, provision should be made for this onsite with a tenure split of 75% affordable / social rented and 25% affordable home ownership. The mix of size and type of affordable housing development will be informed by the latest housing needs assessment. New affordable housing should be well designed and integrated with market housing which contributes to the creation of mixed communities.

Based on the Harborough Local Housing and Employment Land Evidence (February 2025), the Local Plan document specifies that Harborough’s affordable housing need consists of:
• 310 affordable homes for rent per annum; and
• 111 affordable homes ownership per annum.

The supported Viability Report (January 2025) to the Draft Local Plan informs that new affordable housing should be delivered onsite unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated and robustly justified. The Viability Report demonstrates that the majority of draft allocations in the Draft Local Plan are able to support 40% affordable housing provision. The Viability Report also informs that the tenure split for affordable housing will consist of 75% affordable / social rent and 25% affordable home ownership. Where it is robustly demonstrated that the required provision of affordable housing would make a scheme unviable, the requirement for a lower level of provision will be considered. The Viability Report considers that for schemes of 500 dwellings or more, where a non-policy compliant scale of affordable housing is accepted as a result of viability issues, viability will be reassessed at agreed times over the lifetime of a development based on actual costs and values generated by the development.

It is understood that the above figures for affordable home ownership presents the highest possible requirements. When adding the above affordable needs together, it is apparent that a total requirement of 421 homes per annum is needed to meet local affordable need. This figure equates to over half of the updated Standard Method figure of 723 dwellings and close to the previous Standard Method figure of 510 dwellings in which the Draft Local Plan is being assessed under. The figure of 421 affordable dwellings doesn’t even consider market need. As such, this demonstrates that there is a clear need to account for a higher number of homes to address local affordable need in District and a higher number of new homes generally.

Whilst the Council consider that the scale of affordable housing need is significant, they consider that their position is justified in seeking to maximise delivery on sites where possible. The Council go on to acknowledge that the affordable need within the District represents 2/3 of the proposed housing requirement. However, the Council consider that this level of affordable housing provision is unlikely to be deliverable and regard needs to be had to viability considerations and the acknowledgement that public funding is a constraint to affordable housing delivery.

It is evident that that the delivery of housing based purely on local need assessed via the Standard Method (i.e. 510 dwellings per annum) will not deliver sufficient market housing to fully meet the identified affordable need, if planning obligations remain the primary source of delivery. As set out at Section 3.4, if the affordable housing need alone is to be met, this will require 1,176 dwellings per year based on 40% affordable housing requirement.

Taking account of the above, the provision of 40% affordable housing onsite is supported. In terms of the tenure split, the provision of 75% affordable / social rented and 25% affordable is broadly supported, although this needs to be expressed with flexibility to allow for change over time.

It is considered that policy HN02 should be amended to read as follows to ensure that it is sound:
1. “Proposals for residential development will deliver an appropriate mix of housing types, tenures and sizes and should take into account the latest evidence on housing needs in the district published by the Council unless evidence is provided that demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Council that an alternative mix of homes is appropriate.

2. Homes should aim to meet accessible and adaptable M4(2) Building Regulations technical standards where feasible and viable. In seeking this type of home, regard will be had to any evidence provided concerning site-specific factors that may make it impossible to meet the accessible and adaptable standard.

3. Major residential developments should aim to contribute to wheelchair accessibility as follows:
a. Up to 5% of market homes must should aim to meet Building Regulations technical standard M4(3)A (wheelchair adaptable) where viable and feasible; and
b. Up to 5% of affordable homes should aim to meet standard M4(3)B (wheelchair accessible) where viable and feasible.

Please also see attached representations document re: the site at Land off Frolesworth Road, Broughton Astley.

Policy HN02 – Housing Need: Mix of New Homes

Paragraph 61 of the NPPF emphasises that the overall aim should be to meet an area’s identified housing need, including with an appropriate mix of housing types for the local community.

Policy HN02 informs that proposals for residential development will deliver an appropriate mix of housing types, tenures and sizes, and should take into account the latest evidence on housing needs. All homes will be expected to meet accessible and adaptable M4(2) Building Regulations technical standards. All major residential developments will be expected to contribute to wheelchair accessibility as follows:
A. A minimum of 5% of market homes must meet Building Regulations technical standard M4(3)A (wheelchair adaptable); and
B. A minimum of 10% affordable homes must meet standard M4(3)B (wheelchair accessible).

Whilst IM Land acknowledge the need to provide a range of housing mixes and tenures, it is considered that the policy as drafted provides no scope or flexibility and fails to have regard to viability / deliverability factors. The requirement for all homes to meet M4(2) standards and provide 5% of market homes and 10% of affordable homes as M4(3)A and M4(3)B standards will be challenging from a deliverability and viability perspective, especially when considering the expenses associated with delivering M4(3)B and M4(3)A dwellings. Whilst IM Land welcome the inclusion of a Viability Assessment as part of the supporting evidence base for the draft Local Plan, concerns are raised regarding the need for policies to go further beyond matters in relation to Building Regulations and the impact this may have on the Local Plan’s ability to deliver both market and affordable housing where it is most needed.

Taking the above into account, IM Land consider that policy HN02 fails to accord with the tests set out at paragraph 36 of the NPPF and is therefore not justified. It is considered that policy HN02 should be amended to read as follows to ensure that it is sound:
1. “Proposals for residential development will deliver an appropriate mix of housing types, tenures and sizes and should take into account the latest evidence on housing needs in the district published by the Council unless evidence is provided that demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Council that an alternative mix of homes is appropriate.

2. Homes should aim to meet accessible and adaptable M4(2) Building Regulations technical standards where feasible and viable. In seeking this type of home, regard will be had to any evidence provided concerning site-specific factors that may make it impossible to meet the accessible and adaptable standard.

3. Major residential developments should aim to contribute to wheelchair accessibility as follows:
a. Up to 5% of market homes must should aim to meet Building Regulations technical standard M4(3)A (wheelchair adaptable) where viable and feasible; and
b. Up to 5% of affordable homes should aim to meet standard M4(3)B (wheelchair accessible) where viable and feasible.

Subject to the above minor modifications, IM Land would be supportive of this policy.

IM Land wish to emphasise that the densities included within the policy should be viewed as a minimum. IM Land therefore do not support policy HN03 as currently drafted on the basis that it fails to accord with the tests set out at paragraph 36d of the NPPF and the need to use land efficiently. IM Land consider that the proposed minimum density for policy HN03 should be increased to 35dph. Subject to the above minor modifications, IM Land would be supportive of this policy.

Please see attached representations document re: the site at Land off Frolesworth Road, Broughton Astley.

Policy HN03 – Housing Need: Housing Type and Density

Paragraph 130 of the NPPF sets out that where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it is especially important that planning policies and decisions avoid homes being built at low densities and ensure that developments make optimal use of the potential of each site. In these circumstances, the use of minimum density standards should also be considered. It may be appropriate to set out a range of densities that reflect the accessibility and potential of different areas, rather than one broad density range.

Policy HN03 advises that the Council will expect the following minimum residential densities unless a lower density is justified based on the character of the area and availability of public transport and other services and facilities:
a) 40 dwellings per hectare within Lutterworth and Market Harborough town centres
b) 30 dwellings per hectare elsewhere

The draft allocation of 475 dwellings onsite provides a density of 30dph / 35dph. Whilst the allocation of 475 dwellings may exceed the requirement of 30dph, it is acknowledged that the Council obviously consider that BA1 can suitably accommodate an increased density than that set out in the policy.

Further to the above, should the proposals seek to provide 550 dwellings onsite, a density of approximately 38dph would be accommodated onsite. Whilst this exceeds that set out in policy HN03, in accordance with the NPPF and optimising the developments of sites, it is considered that the density of 30dph should be considered as a minimum figure. Having 30dph as a minimum figure builds flexibility into the policy and will allow the Council to set out a range of densities that reflect the accessibility and potential of different areas, in accordance with the NPPF.

In light of the above, IM Land wish to emphasise that the densities included within the policy should be viewed as a minimum. IM Land therefore do not support policy HN03 as currently drafted on the basis that it fails to accord with the tests set out at paragraph 36d of the NPPF and the need to use land efficiently. IM Land consider that the proposed minimum density for policy HN03 should be increased to 35dph. Subject to the above minor modifications, IM Land would be supportive of this policy.

It is considered that part 2 of the policy should be amended to read as follows to make policy HN04 sound:

“Specialist housing for older people will be required as an integral part of all residential development of 100 dwellings or more at an approximate rate of 5% or more of all dwellings proposed, providing the site offers a suitable location for the provision of this type of accommodation”.

Please see attached representations document re: the site at Land off Frolesworth Road, Broughton Astley.

1.1 Policy HN04 – Housing Need: Supported and Specialist Housing

Paragraph 63 requires the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community to be assessed and reflected in planning policies.

Policy HN04 sets out that specialist housing for older people will be required as an integral part of all residential developments of 100 dwellings or more at a rate of at least 10% of all dwellings proposed, providing the site offers a suitable location for the provision of this type of accommodation.

Whilst the evidence set out in the Harborough Local Housing and Employment Land Evidence (February 2025) indicates that in the future household sizes are projected to drop whilst the population of older people will increase, based on the evidence presented, it is unclear as to where the need for ‘at least 10%’ of all dwellings on sites of 100 dwellings or more as specialist housing has been presented. The Harborough Local Housing and Employment Land Evidence also confirms that there is no standard methodology for assessing the housing and care needs of older people. The policy also fails to clarify as to what types of development ‘specialist housing’ relates to. Therefore, the provision of 10% has not been positively prepared and is unjustified.

In regard to the above and to ensure that more flexibility is built into the policy, it is considered that a reduced percentage rate should be included within the policy to ensure that all developments of 100 dwellings or more can suitably accommodate a portion of specialist housing onsite. It is considered that a 5% contribution towards specialist housing is a more reasonable quantum that will be better accommodated by development sites. Whilst we acknowledge that the evidence prepared fails to justify the need for 10% specialist housing onsite and also doesn’t make reference to the need for 5% specialist housing, IM Land consider that a quantum of 5% is more reasonable and will be better accommodated within development sites. A quantum of 5% is also considered suitable given the evidence confirms that there is no standard methodology for assessing the housing care needs of older people.

Taking the above into account, IM Land consider that policy HN04 fails to accord with the tests set out at paragraph 36 of the NPPF and is therefore not justified. It is considered that part 2 of the policy should be amended to read as follows to make policy HN04 sound:

“Specialist housing for older people will be required as an integral part of all residential development of 100 dwellings or more at an approximate rate of 5% or more of all dwellings proposed, providing the site offers a suitable location for the provision of this type of accommodation”.

IM Land therefore do not support the policy as currently drafted. Subject to the above minor modifications, IM Land would be supportive of this policy.

In light of the above, IM Land consider that policy HN05 fails to accord with the tests set out at paragraph 36 of the NPPF and is therefore not justified. It is recommended that the wording of draft policy HN05 is amended to read as follows in order for it to be considered sound:

“1. To contribute to meeting demand for self and custom build plots, all non-specialist development of 40 dwellings (gross) or more must provide approximately 5% of the total number of dwellings as self or custom build plots.

3. A lower level of provision will only be permitted where there is clear evidence of lower demand. If plots on developments of 40 dwellings or more remain unsold, these plots may be built out as conventional market housing subject to detailed permission being secured which must be supported by evidence that a thorough marketing exercise has been undertaken over a period of at least 12 months commencing from the date at which the serviced self or custom build plot was available.

Part 6 - delete.

Please see attached representations document re: the site at Land off Frolesworth Road, Broughton Astley.

Policy HN05 – Housing Need: Self and Custom Build Housing

Under Section 1 of the Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, Local Planning Authorities are required to keep a register of those seeking self-build and custom house building plots. Section 2 of the Act requires Local Planning Authorities to provide sufficient suitable permissions to meet the identified need on the register.

The NPPF informs at paragraph 73(b) that Local Planning Authorities should seek opportunities for small – medium scale sites to be delivered for self and custom housebuilding.

Policy HN05 sets out that in order to contribute to meeting demand for self and custom build plots, all non-specialised development of 40 dwellings (gross) or more must provide at least 10% of the total number of dwellings as self or custom build plots. Policy HN05 goes on to inform that a lower level of provision will only be permitted where there is clear evidence of lower demand. If plots on developments of 40 dwellings or more remain unsold for 18 months, then these plots may be built out as market housing.

The Harborough District Council Self and Custom Build Register suggests that there is a demand for 298 plots (as at 30 October 2024). Further to this, the Council have typically seen an average of 36 registrations a year for self and custom build plots. The Harborough Local Housing and Employment Land Evidence (February 2025) considers that there is a need for self and custom build units across the District. The Housing and Employment Land Evidence goes on to inform that despite a relatively permissive policy for self and custom build plots in the adopted Local Plan, the volumes of permissions have not matched registrations. As such, the Council have sought to tighten the policy framework under the Draft Local Plan, hence the 10% requirement for sites of 40 dwellings or more.

Whilst Policy HN05 includes a cascade mechanism should there be no interest in self and custom build plots on sites, the requirement for ‘at least 10%’ self and custom build plots as currently drafted is not supported. The requirement for 10% is considered excessive, even when considering the volume of permissions and registrations. Given the rate of demand detailed above, as well as other sites within the District and the draft allocations listed in the Draft Local Plan, the availability of plots would significantly exceed demand. As such, this would result in plots sitting vacant for extended periods of time which can lead to a range of issues such as security and fly tipping. This risk is obviously a shared concern of the Council’s, hence why a cascade mechanism is suggested within the draft policy.

With regards to the cascade mechanism, whilst it is positive to see that the Council have included this to support the provision of any unbuilt plots being built out as market housing, in reality this mechanism is not supported due to the build out implications and phased approach of the development. This could have significant implications for new residents onsite who would then have to endure construction works and traffic, whilst the proposed self and custom build plots are built out for market dwellings. As such, this approach is not practicable or suitable. Further to this, it is also considered that the requirement for properties to remain unsold for a period of 18 months is excessive and a period of 12 months is more suitable.
We note that part 6 of the policy also requires detailed applications for self and custom build homes to have a plot passport and design code. It is considered that the need for a specific design code for these plots is excessive and will potentially delay self and custom houses coming forward for development. The policy also fails to specify who would be responsible for preparing the design code and what the process for this would entail. Therefore, this requirement should be removed.

In light of the above, IM Land consider that policy HN04 fails to accord with the tests set out at paragraph 36 of the NPPF and is therefore not justified. It is recommended that the wording of draft policy HN05 is amended to read as follows in order for it to be considered sound:

“1. To contribute to meeting demand for self and custom build plots, all non-specialist development of 40 dwellings (gross) or more must provide approximately 5% of the total number of dwellings as self or custom build plots.

3. A lower level of provision will only be permitted where there is clear evidence of lower demand. If plots on developments of 40 dwellings or more remain unsold, these plots may be built out as conventional market housing subject to detailed permission being secured which must be supported by evidence that a thorough marketing exercise has been undertaken over a period of at least 12 months commencing from the date at which the serviced self or custom build plot was available.

Part 6 - delete.

IM Land therefore do not support the policy as currently drafted. Subject to the above minor modifications, IM Land would be supportive of this policy.

IM Land therefore wish to see the allocation increased to 550 dwellings and wish to comment further on draft allocation BA1 through the Draft Local Plan process.

Please see attached representations document re: the site at Land off Frolesworth Road, Broughton Astley.

1.1 Policy SA01: Site Allocations

Policy SA01 lists the proposed site allocations which will support and enable the delivery of the development strategy policies listed within the Draft Local Plan. Policy SA01 advises that the Council will seek to enter into a Planning Performance Agreement with promoters of strategically important sites to ensure a programmed approach to determination and site delivery / implementation.

BA1 forms the only draft allocation for Broughton Astley and is proposed as below. The Applicant has provided additional comments next to each criterion of BA1 to demonstrate how the Site proposals will achieve these requirements (See attached document).

As previously stated, IM Land support the BA1’s draft allocation in the Draft Local Plan and wish to reiterate their commitment to working with the Council to bring forward BA1 for development.

In terms of the proposed housing figure of 475 dwellings for BA1, as currently drafted, Harborough District Council make no provision for any flexibility within the draft allocation regarding the scope of dwellings proposed. To ensure that suitable flexibility is provided within the draft allocation for Site BA1, the Council should include wording along the lines of ‘around’ or ‘approximately’ to provide some flexibility within the policy wording.

In addition to the above and as previously raised within these representations, BA1 has the potential to deliver up to 550 dwellings. It is considered that BA1 has the capacity to deliver up to 550 dwellings via a comprehensive masterplan and one that is of good design. The provision of 550 dwellings has been explored by IM Land through the provision of technical works and supporting evidence. From the technical studies carried out, it is considered that the increased capacity of 75 dwellings would not have a severe impact on the local highway network and would not have a significant impact on local infrastructure. This is particularly applicable given the infrastructure provisions onsite and the contributions BA1 proposes as part of the wider development. Further to this and as raised in the above section, it is considered that Harborough District will need to make further provision for housing within the Draft Local Plan to meet evidenced needs. As such, the provision of a further 75 dwellings onsite would provide a sustainable contribution towards this in the large village of Broughton Astley.

In terms of the supporting evidence prepared in relation to the development proposals, the pre-application discussions that have taken place with the LLFA (Appendix B), LCC Highways (Appendix C) and National Highways (Appendix D) have been appended to these representations. These pre-application discussions detail that there are no technical concerns from a highways or flood risk point of view and the proposals can be suitably and accordingly mitigated. The highways discussions and trip generation for BA1 have been based on a Site capacity of 600 dwellings and demonstrate that a development in this region can be suitably accommodated. A planning pre-application request has also been submitted to Harborough District Council. At the time of writing these representations, formal advice is yet to be issued by Harborough District Council.

It is understood that the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment Update (2024) has provided the basis for the proposed allocation of 475 dwellings at BA1 and has had regard to constraints. In terms of technical constraints from a highways and flood risk point of view, the pre-application responses from National Highways, LCC Highways and the LLFA have indicated that there are no significant constraints associated with BA1 that cannot be overcome by suitable design and mitigation measures. To note, the highways pre-application discussions have also been based on a figure of 600 dwellings to ensure sufficient flexibility in the Site considerations. Whilst there are overhead pylons onsite, these have been considered in the design of the Site proposals and suitable easements and open space is proposed within proximity to these features. On this basis, it is considered that no significant constraints have been identified which prevent BA1 providing a capacity of 550 dwellings and it is therefore requested that the draft Site Allocation be updated on this basis. The supporting technical works will be prepared as part of a future planning application for BA1 and will provide sufficient justification for the accommodation of 550 dwellings onsite.

IM Land consider that the policy as drafted is not justified as it does not reflect evidenced based needs. Whilst IM Land broadly support in principle the draft allocation of BA1 in the Draft Local Plan, they do not consider it is justified or based on sound evidence. IM Land therefore wish to see the allocation increased to 550 dwellings and wish to comment further on draft allocation BA1 through the Draft Local Plan process.

Looking at part 1 of the policy, it is considered that the proposed approach is vague and fails to provide further details in relation rainwater storage. It is considered that rainwater storage could relate to either water butts or the provision of rainwater harvesting tanks. If the policy does seek to include the provision of rainwater harvesting tanks, regard will then need to be had to storage calculations and there being the possibility of an over provision of storage requirements. These comments also relate to part 2a of the policy.

Part 3f of the policy makes reference to peak run-off rates over the lifetime of a development and the need for developments to achieve a 20% reduction in run-off rates compared to pre-development conditions to account for existing surface water runoff problems. As currently drafted, it is unclear as to what return periods are being referenced to in respect of the 20% reduction in run-off rates. The wording of the policy needs to be more specific in this regard and advise how the 20% rate should be applied and what should be achieved. This is particularly crucial given the potential implications this can have on storage requirements. It is also unclear if the Council are suggesting whether brownfield sites would need to revert to greenfield sites and if a further 20% would then need to be applied, which would be seemingly onerous. Further to this, there are also practical implications associated with the 20% runoff rate, noting that discharge rates cannot be reduced to below 2 I/s due to blockage issues with the flow control devices.

Please see attached representations document re: the site at Land off Frolesworth Road, Broughton Astley.

1.1 Policy DM08: Sustainable Drainage

Paragraph 182 of the NPPF requires applications which could affect drainage on or around the site to incorporate sustainable drainage systems to control flow rates and reduce volumes of runoff and which are proportionate to the nature and scale of the proposal.

As currently drafted, IM Land do not support policy DM08.
Firstly, looking at part 1 of the policy, it is considered that the proposed approach is vague and fails to provide further details in relation rainwater storage. It is considered that rainwater storage could relate to either water butts or the provision of rainwater harvesting tanks. If the policy does seek to include the provision of rainwater harvesting tanks, regard will then need to be had to storage calculations and there being the possibility of an over provision of storage requirements. These comments also relate to part 2a of the policy.

Part 3f of the policy makes reference to peak run-off rates over the lifetime of a development and the need for developments to achieve a 20% reduction in run-off rates compared to pre-development conditions to account for existing surface water runoff problems. As currently drafted, it is unclear as to what return periods are being referenced to in respect of the 20% reduction in run-off rates. The wording of the policy needs to be more specific in this regard and advise how the 20% rate should be applied and what should be achieved. This is particularly crucial given the potential implications this can have on storage requirements. It is also unclear if the Council are suggesting whether brownfield sites would need to revert to greenfield sites and if a further 20% would then need to be applied, which would be seemingly onerous. Further to this, there are also practical implications associated with the 20% runoff rate, noting that discharge rates cannot be reduced to below 2 I/s due to blockage issues with the flow control devices.

Taking the above into account, IM Land do not support policy DM08 as currently proposed and request that the policy is reviewed, with elements on rainwater storage and 20% runoff rates being specified further. It is considered that policy DM08 has not been positively prepared, is not justified or based on sound evidence, as per paragraph 36 of the NPPF. We therefore reserve the right to comment on this once further information is made available and subject to the above minor modifications, IM Land would be supportive of this policy.

Policy DM09 (parts 1 and 2) should be amended as follows:

1. All development should aim to:.....

2. Delete

IM Land therefore do not support the policy as currently drafted. Subject to the above minor modifications, IM Land would be supportive of this policy.

Policy DM09: Sustainable Construction and Climate Resilience

Paragraph 162 of the NPPF sets out that Plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change. Policies should support appropriate measures to ensure the future health and resilience of communities and infrastructure to climate change impacts.

When reviewing policy DM09 it is considered that the wording includes no flexibility and fails to have regard to viability and individual development proposals. As such, IM Land do not support the policy as currently drafted.

Further to the above, policy DM09 requires all new-build residential developments to achieve at least a three star rating under the BRE Home Quality Mark scheme. This is not supported. The BRE Home Quality Mark scheme is a voluntary certification scheme for new developments. To achieve the Home Quality Mark certification, new dwellings must exceed the requirements of established standards set out in Building Regulations. If a site is already meeting the requirements of Building Regulations, then there is no requirement in national policy for a site to go above and beyond this. The approach taken by the Council for all new build residential standards to meet this voluntary certification is onerous and has not been supported by any evidence. It is not considered reasonable to restrict the delivery of residential development when the BRE Home Quality Mark certification is a voluntary certification and exceeds Building Regulations. The requirement for BRE Home Quality Mark certification may not be suitable or practicable in parts of a development. On this basis, it is considered that policy DM09 has not been positively prepared and is not justified.

Taking the above into account, it is considered that the below recommendations are necessary to ensure that policy DM09 is sound and justified, as per the requirements of paragraph 36 of the NPPF. Therefore, draft policy DM09 should be amended to read as follows:

“All development should aim to:
a) minimise carbon emissions during construction, which may include use of low-carbon construction materials, and adopting energy efficient construction practices;
b) where relevant, demonstrate that demolition of existing buildings is justified in comparison to their retention and re-use, and where buildings are retained, integrate measures to make these more energy and resource efficient in accordance with criteria 3 and 5 below;
c) where demolition of existing buildings is required, demonstrate the reuse of demolition and construction waste;
d) demonstrate the integration of passive design measures, including delivering cooling without increasing carbon emissions, such as through optimal building orientation, natural ventilation, solar shading and the use of thermal mass to regulate indoor temperatures;
e) be supported by a water efficiency statement that outlines, in priority order, measures to reduce water consumption, reuse water, or offset its use and achieve minimum water efficiency equivalent to 110 litres per person per day for any residential use, or non-residential development to achieve at least 3 credits in the Wat01 Measure for water in the BREEAM New Construction standard; and
f) Demonstrate how waste will be minimised during construction and during the operation of the development. Residential development.

Delete part 2 from policy.

IM Land therefore do not support the policy as currently drafted. Subject to the above minor modifications, IM Land would be supportive of this policy.

Amend to read as follows:

1. All qualifying development proposals must deliver a 10% measurable biodiversity net gain attributable to the development. The net gain for biodiversity should be calculated using Natural England’s Biodiversity Metric....

4. All development should aim to contribute towards protecting and improving biodiversity and geodiversity by:....

Subject to the above minor modifications, IM Land would be supportive of this policy.

1.1 Policy DM10: Biodiversity and Geodiversity Protection and Enhancement

Paragraph 187 of the NPPF advises that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity.

Whilst IM Land support the principle of the policy and securing a mandatory requirement of 10% BNG, it is considered that the policy as currently worded does not provide any flexibility and sets an absolute requirement. For example, part c) of the policy requires developments to protect and enhance green and blue infrastructure assets. It is unlikely that the majority of developments will be able to fully comply with this requirement. Many development sites require the removal of some trees or hedgerows to facilitate development due to constraints such as access or levels. As such, it is requested that flexibility is built into the policy to allow developments to be delivered even when they cannot meet all of the requirements set out in draft policy DM10.

On account of the above, the following recommendations are made to amend the wording of draft policy DM10 to read as follows to ensure that it is sound and justified, as per the tests set out at paragraph 36 of the NPPF:

"All qualifying development proposals must deliver a 10% measurable biodiversity net gain attributable to the development. The net gain for biodiversity should be calculated using Natural England’s Biodiversity Metric.

All development should aim to contribute towards protecting and improving biodiversity and geodiversity by:
a) protecting and enhancing priority species and their habitats
b) including measures to mitigate the impacts of climate change on the district’s flora and fauna
c) protecting and enhancing green and blue infrastructure assets
d) protecting riparian zones and watercourses by creating and enhancing undeveloped buffer zones alongside watercourses to ensure functional habitat corridors for wildlife
e) protecting features and areas of geodiversity value and enhancing them to improve connectivity of habitats, amenity use, education and interpretation
f) include appropriate measures to manage construction impacts by demonstrating how existing wildlife habitats supporting protected or priority species will be retained, safeguarded and managed during construction.
Subject to the above minor modifications, IM Land would be supportive of this policy.