Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

Extending the plan-period by two years to 2043 (to increase flexibility) increases the prospects of the New Local Plan providing for a 15-year period post adoption in line with the NPPF. This would increase the housing requirement by circa 1,256 dwellings (based on the current housing requirement set out in Policy DS01 Development Strategy: Delivering Homes).

The NPPF states that strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15-year period from adoption (paragraph 22). The plan period for the New Local Plan is 2020 – 2041.
The Local Development Scheme (2025) targets submission of the New Local Plan for examination in September / October 2025, with adoption anticipated around October – December 2026.
If the New Local Plan is adopted in December 2026 and the plan period expires on 31 March 2041, that would cover less than 15-years (and would therefore be contrary to the Framework). If the Examination into the New Local Plan becomes protracted and it is adopted after 1 April 2027 (as is feasible based on the Council's expected timeframe), that would represent a 14-year plan-period.
Extending the plan-period by two years to 2043 (to increase flexibility) increases the prospects of the New Local Plan providing for a 15-year period post adoption in line with the NPPF. This would increase the housing requirement by circa 1,256 dwellings (based on the current housing requirement set out in Policy DS01 Development Strategy: Delivering Homes).
As a consequence, the draft Local Plan is currently unsound as it is inconsistent with national policy (which requires the Plan to provide for a minimum 15 year period) and, by implication, does not provide for the necessary levels of growth.

The vision should should reference the development of new homes, including market, accessible and specialist housing (in addition to affordable housing).
The vision should reflect the importance of ensuring housing growth can keep pace with the commitment to meeting employment and economic growth needs.
In addition to referencing housing development to meet the needs of the District, the Vision should also make specific reference to contributing to meeting the unmet needs of Leicester City. This would signal a clear commitment in the plan at the outset, aligning with the Statement of Common Ground and according with the Duty to Cooperate.
Extending the plan-period by two years to 2043 (to increase flexibility) increases the prospects of the New Local Plan providing for a 15-year period post adoption in line with the NPPF. This would increase the housing requirement by circa 1,256 dwellings (based on the current housing requirement set out in Policy DS01 Development Strategy: Delivering Homes).

Our client is broadly supportive of the proposed Local Plan Vision which seeks to offer a range of housing options, mainly focussed in the areas near to the City of Leicester, as well as the Borough of Oadby and Wigston, and around the market towns.
It is positive that the Vision acknowledges the importance of sustainable and accessible locations for new communities, which will enhance access to services and employment opportunities and that the “development of new homes” is explicitly referenced. Development at our client’s site in Bushby would align with the Vision.
It is recommended that the Vision makes reference to market, accessible and specialist housing (in addition to affordable housing) within the second paragraph to ensure the Vision makes clear that a range of current and future housing needs will be met through development (in accordance with paragraph 60 of the 2023 NPPF – to significantly boost the supply of homes whilst addressing the needs of groups with specific housing requirements).
It is recommended that the Vision reflects the importance of ensuring housing growth can keep pace with the commitment to meeting employment and economic growth needs (which is supported by the Promoter), ensuring there is a locally available workforce to sustain and support the local economy and to accord with the wider plan Vision.
In addition to referencing housing development to meet the needs of the District, the Vision should also make specific reference to contributing to meeting the unmet needs of Leicester City. This would signal a clear commitment in the plan at the outset, aligning with the Statement of Common Ground and according with the Duty to Cooperate.
The NPPF states that strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15-year period from adoption (paragraph 22). The plan period for the New Local Plan is 2020 – 2041.
The Local Development Scheme (2025) targets submission of the New Local Plan for examination in September / October 2025, with adoption anticipated around October – December 2026.
If the New Local Plan is adopted in December 2026 and the plan period expires on 31 March 2041, that would cover less than 15-years (and would therefore be contrary to the Framework). If the Examination into the New Local Plan becomes protracted and it is adopted after 1 April 2027 (as is feasible based on the Council's expected timeframe), that would represent a 14-year plan-period.
Extending the plan-period by two years to 2043 (to increase flexibility) increases the prospects of the New Local Plan providing for a 15-year period post adoption in line with the NPPF. This would increase the housing requirement by circa 1,256 dwellings (based on the current housing requirement set out in Policy DS01 Development Strategy: Delivering Homes).
As a consequence, the draft Local Plan is currently unsound as it is inconsistent with national policy (which requires the Plan to provide for a minimum 15 year period) and, by implication, does not provide for the necessary levels of growth.

Objective 1 should further be developed to make specific reference to ‘growth’, to ensure it doesn’t solely focus on meeting housing needs. Additional growth would help to attract people into the District, which in turn supports the second objective relating to employment growth. This suggested amendment would align with paragraph 11 of the NPPF (2023), which recognises the importance of aligning growth with meeting the development needs of an area.
Objective 1 should also be updated to reference the provision of market housing, alongside the provision of affordable, accessible and specialist housing, as per our comments in relation to the vision for the plan.

Please refer to the uploaded documents Land off Uppingham Road, Bushby – Reps to the Evidence Base SA Statement and Land off Uppingham Road, Bushby – Site Opportunity and Promotion Statement submitted in response to the proposed plan objectives and policies DS03, SA01 and DM05.

The first development objective set out at Paragraph 3.1 ‘Delivering Homes’ is welcomed, acknowledging the requirement to ‘deliver the housing needed’ to provide housing that addresses the specific needs of different communities and age groups.
This notwithstanding, the objective should further be developed to make specific reference to ‘growth’, to ensure it doesn’t solely focus on meeting housing needs. Additional growth would help to attract people into the District, which in turn supports the second objective relating to employment growth. This suggested amendment would align with paragraph 11 of the NPPF (2023), which recognises the importance of aligning growth with meeting the development needs of an area.
Objective 1 should also be updated to reference the provision of market housing, alongside the provision of affordable, accessible and specialist housing, as per our comments in relation to the vision for the plan.
Land off Uppingham Road, Bushby presents a prime opportunity to deliver the housing needs and growth of the District, in a sustainable location, with accessible transport links to employment areas. The allocation of this site would align with the Local Plan Objectives set out at paragraph 3.1 of the New Local Plan.

The housing requirement should be increased further by extending the plan period by two years (see our comments above). Should the Council accept our suggestion that the plan period should be extended, there would be a requirement for a further Regulation 19 consultation, and as such, the Council would no longer benefit from the transitional arrangements set out at Annex 1 of the NPPF (2024). On this basis, the emerging Local Plan would need to positively plan for a Local Housing Need (LHN) of 723 dwellings per annum, as a minimum. Based on an extended plan period (2020-2043), to meet the needs of Harborough only, the plan requirement would increase to 16,629 dwellings over the plan period. Assuming that the contributions to the unmet needs of Leicester remains unchanged (i.e. 123 dwellings per annum for the first 16 years of the plan period), an additional 1,968 dwellings would be required, bringing the total housing requirement over the extended plan period to 18,597 dwellings to meet these needs.

This notwithstanding, should the plan period not be extended, the updated LHN figure would result in a requirement for 15,183 dwellings over the proposed plan period (2020-2041). Factoring in the contributions to the unmet needs of Leicester City, this would increase to 17,151 dwellings over the plan period, resulting in a shortfall of 3,969 dwellings.

In the instance that the Council proceed with the submission of the Publication Plan as drafted, it will be at the discretion of the examining Inspector to consider whether the gap between the local housing need and the housing requirement that the emerging plan is providing for, is deemed so substantial that the plan could not be considered sound. When considering the increase in local housing need, it is our view that this would leave a significant shortfall in housing provision being planned for in the emerging Local Plan, and given the length of the plan period, this would effectively leave Harborough woefully short of housing supply. This in turn will have a negative impact on the housing land supply position over the course of the plan period, noting that there currently is an acknowledged lack of five-year supply. As such, this is not considered to be a positive or sound approach to plan making.

Part 2 of the draft policy explains that the New Local Plan only needs to allocate land for a minimum of 6,422 new homes as the remainder of the housing requirement will be delivered by existing housing commitments and completions (along with windfall sites). This notwithstanding, should there be a delay to the delivery of any of these sites, this would impact the ability of the plan to meet needs. We reserve the right to comment on any updated evidence in due course in this regard.

The above notwithstanding, the emerging plan identifies just four strategic site allocations providing over 500 dwellings, a strategy which is considered to leave little flexibility for proactively meeting housing needs over the plan period. As above, this would likely further challenge the Councils ability to maintain a five year supply over the plan period, given the higher than currently planned for LHN and potential for delays to delivery on committed sites.

The spatial distribution is set out within the overall development strategy of the New Local Plan, which is to direct development to “deliver the homes needed, focusing development in sustainable locations with access to services and opportunities for sustainable travel, whilst supporting the vitality of rural areas and ensuring the scale of development is appropriate to individual towns or villages” (paragraph 4.2). The supporting text reiterates the strategy is to “focus residential development predominantly on Leicester Urban Area and Market Harborough” as this is a reflection of the higher levels of access to public transport (paragraph 4.13) and “enable modest and proportionate growth” in the Medium and Small Villages across the district (paragraph 4.16).

Bushby forms part of the Leicester Urban Area, which is acknowledged by the Council as a Tier 1 settlement. The Council’s decision to only allocate 125 new homes over the plan period in Bushby is completely at odds with the overall development strategy. Market Harborough, below Bushby in the settlement hierarchy, has been identified for ten times the number of homes. The ‘Large Villages’ of Broughton Astley, Kibworth and Great Glen (Tier 3 settlements) have been identified for double the growth of Thurnby and Bushby.

On a more macro scale, the Council’s decision to direct growth towards the large, medium and small villages (amounting to 3,972 dwellings in total) is 1,522 dwellings more than the growth identified for the Leicester Urban Area. This is disproportionate and inappropriate, and contrary to the overall development strategy.

We urge the Council to reconsider its approach and allocate significantly more homes to the Leicester Urban Area (and specifically to Bushby), reflecting its sustainable location within the Leicester Urban Area and better reflecting the overall development strategy, Vision and objectives of the New Local Plan. Directing development to Thurnby and Bushby would support the vitality of rural areas and ensuring the scale of development is appropriate to individual towns or villages.

Based on past trends, the Local Plan expects an additional 450 homes to be delivered on windfall sites by 2041. However, given there are available sites across the District (such as the Bushby site) in sustainable locations, that would adhere with the development objectives for the District, this windfall allowance would be better accommodated by larger site allocations. The delivery of larger sites, rather than piecemeal windfall sites across the District, would increase the opportunities for infrastructure improvements, supporting the delivery of the final Development Objective for the Local Plan, ‘Enabling Supporting Infrastructure’ (paragraph 3.1).

The housing requirement figure of 13,182 (covering the period 2020 – 2041) has been derived from requiring 657 homes per year between 2020 and 2036 (comprising 534 homes per year for Harborough and an additional 123 homes per year to meet the unmet need from Leicester – in line with the Statement of Common Ground agreed in 2022) and 534 homes per year between 2036 and 2041 to meet its own needs. This approach does not deal with any assumed unmet need from Leicester City during the final years of the plan period (which there will certainly be, and Harborough District will be the most suitable and sustainable location to accommodate this unmet need). This does not accord with the Council’s own objective of ‘delivering the housing needed’ or ‘significantly boosting the supply of homes’ as per the Framework. This position only ensures a 4.5-year housing land supply. Adding the 5% buffer (689 requirement per annum) reduces this further to 4.2 years housing land supply. These supply figures are based on the Council’s own work, and we reserve our position to provide our updated evidence during the EiP. For the Council to be taking forward a plan which already does not deliver sufficient housing, is a high risk position.
Moreover, the housing requirement should be increased further by extending the plan period by two years (see our comments above). Should the Council accept our suggestion that the plan period should be extended, there would be a requirement for a further Regulation 19 consultation, and as such, the Council would no longer benefit from the transitional arrangements set out at Annex 1 of the NPPF (2024). On this basis, the emerging Local Plan would need to positively plan for a Local Housing Need (LHN) of 723 dwellings per annum, as a minimum. Based on an extended plan period (2020-2043), to meet the needs of Harborough only, the plan requirement would increase to 16,629 dwellings over the plan period. Assuming that the contributions to the unmet needs of Leicester remains unchanged (i.e. 123 dwellings per annum for the first 16 years of the plan period), an additional 1,968 dwellings would be required, bringing the total housing requirement over the extended plan period to 18,597 dwellings to meet these needs.
This notwithstanding, should the plan period not be extended, the updated LHN figure would result in a requirement for 15,183 dwellings over the proposed plan period (2020-2041). Factoring in the contributions to the unmet needs of Leicester City, this would increase to 17,151 dwellings over the plan period, resulting in a shortfall of 3,969 dwellings.
In the instance that the Council proceed with the submission of the Publication Plan as drafted, it will be at the discretion of the examining Inspector to consider whether the gap between the local housing need and the housing requirement that the emerging plan is providing for, is deemed so substantial that the plan could not be considered sound. When considering the increase in local housing need, it is our view that this would leave a significant shortfall in housing provision being planned for in the emerging Local Plan, and given the length of the plan period, this would effectively leave Harborough woefully short of housing supply. This in turn will have a negative impact on the housing land supply position over the course of the plan period, noting that there currently is an acknowledged lack of five-year supply (please refer to our Pre-Application Enquiry response). As such, this is not considered to be a positive or sound approach to plan making.
Part 2 of the draft policy explains that the New Local Plan only needs to allocate land for a minimum of 6,422 new homes as the remainder of the housing requirement will be delivered by existing housing commitments and completions (along with windfall sites). This notwithstanding, should there be a delay to the delivery of any of these sites, this would impact the ability of the plan to meet needs. We reserve the right to comment on any updated evidence in due course in this regard.
The above notwithstanding, the emerging plan identifies just four strategic site allocations providing over 500 dwellings, a strategy which is considered to leave little flexibility for proactively meeting housing needs over the plan period. As above, this would likely further challenge the Councils ability to maintain a five year supply over the plan period, given the higher than currently planned for LHN and potential for delays to delivery on committed sites.
The spatial distribution is set out within the overall development strategy of the New Local Plan, which is to direct development to “deliver the homes needed, focusing development in sustainable locations with access to services and opportunities for sustainable travel, whilst supporting the vitality of rural areas and ensuring the scale of development is appropriate to individual towns or villages” (paragraph 4.2). The supporting text reiterates the strategy is to “focus residential development predominantly on Leicester Urban Area and Market Harborough” as this is a reflection of the higher levels of access to public transport (paragraph 4.13) and “enable modest and proportionate growth” in the Medium and Small Villages across the district (paragraph 4.16).
Bushby forms part of the Leicester Urban Area, which is acknowledged by the Council as a Tier 1 settlement. The Council’s decision to only allocate 125 new homes over the plan period in Bushby is completely at odds with the overall development strategy. Market Harborough, below Bushby in the settlement hierarchy, has been identified for ten times the number of homes. The ‘Large Villages’ of Broughton Astley, Kibworth and Great Glen (Tier 3 settlements) have been identified for double the growth of Thurnby and Bushby.
On a more macro scale, the Council’s decision to direct growth towards the large, medium and small villages (amounting to 3,972 dwellings in total) is 1,522 dwellings more than the growth identified for the Leicester Urban Area. This is disproportionate and inappropriate, and contrary to the overall development strategy.
We urge the Council to reconsider its approach and allocate significantly more homes to the Leicester Urban Area (and specifically to Bushby), reflecting its sustainable location within the Leicester Urban Area and better reflecting the overall development strategy, Vision and objectives of the New Local Plan. Directing development to Thurnby and Bushby would support the vitality of rural areas and ensuring the scale of development is appropriate to individual towns or villages.
Based on past trends, the Local Plan expects an additional 450 homes to be delivered on windfall sites by 2041. However, given there are available sites across the District (such as the Bushby site) in sustainable locations, that would adhere with the development objectives for the District, this windfall allowance would be better accommodated by larger site allocations. The delivery of larger sites, rather than piecemeal windfall sites across the District, would increase the opportunities for infrastructure improvements, supporting the delivery of the final Development Objective for the Local Plan, ‘Enabling Supporting Infrastructure’ (paragraph 3.1).

The plan should ensure that economic and employment growth is supported and complemented by housing development. Since the most significant proposed employment allocation will be located in close proximity to Bushby, the strategy for housing growth should direct the greatest proportion of housing growth towards the Leicester Urban Area. This would meet the objectives of the plan.
It is therefore evident that allocating additional housing in the Leicester Urban Area, such as the Bushby site, would accord with draft Policy DS02, guiding development to a sustainable location and aligning with the economic and employment growth opportunities of the area.

Policy DS02 sets out an employment land requirement of 60 hectares, between 2020 and 2041. Of this requirement, the largest single employment allocation will be located within the Leicester Urban Area, at the land south of Gartree Road Strategic Development Area, in close proximity to the Bushby site.
Paragraph 8 of the NPPF (2023) sets out how achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives; economic, social and environmental; which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways.
As set out in response to draft Policy DS01, the greatest proportion of housing growth proposed by the New Local Plan is currently directed to the large, medium and small villages in the district. However, as set out previously, the plan should ensure that economic and employment growth is supported and complemented by housing development. Since the most significant employment allocation contained within the plan will be located in close proximity to Bushby, the strategy for housing growth (as at Policy DS01) should direct the greatest proportion of housing growth towards the Leicester Urban Area. This would be the most sustainable approach to development and meet the objectives of the plan to reduce carbon emissions and support economic growth.
It is therefore evident that allocating additional housing in the Leicester Urban Area, such as the Bushby site, would accord with draft Policy DS02, guiding development to a sustainable location and aligning with the economic and employment growth opportunities of the area.

We recommend that Part 1(e) replaces “where relevant” to “where possible” to reflect the caveat in Part 3. In terms of Part 3, we would welcome further clarification within the policy wording to confirm that these requirements are subject to site specific considerations, including constraints such as flood risk, and scheme viability.

Please refer to the uploaded documents Land off Uppingham Road, Bushby – Reps to the Evidence Base SA Statement and Land off Uppingham Road, Bushby – Site Opportunity and Promotion Statement submitted in response to the proposed plan objectives and policies DS03, SA01 and DM05.

As submitted with these representations, the accompanying reports on transport and the concept masterplan demonstrate that the Bushby site will be capable of achieving the key priorities set out in this draft policy. Specifically, the delivery of the site would:

• Prioritise sustainable active travel modes such as walking, cycling, or public transport above use of the private car through the integration of a network of pedestrian and cycle routes and opportunities for bus routes to be extended through the site, aligned with new bus stop infrastructure.

• Contribute to the creation, improved connectivity and enhancement of multifunctional green and blue infrastructure through landscaping, open space creation, the use of SUDs and habitat enhancement.

• Contribute to the delivery of the national Nature Recovery Network and Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Nature Recovery Strategy through the delivery of Biodiversity Net Gain.

• Existing green and blue infrastructure networks will be enhanced and retained where possible, including woodlands, hedgerows and semi-natural habitats.

We recommend that Part 1(e) replaces “where relevant” to “where possible” to reflect the caveat in Part 3. In terms of Part 3, we would welcome further clarification within the policy wording to confirm that these requirements are subject to site specific considerations, including constraints such as flood risk, and scheme viability.

It is recommended that sub-section (c) of Paragraph 5 in Policy DM10 is updated to state:
‘Development proposals that are likely to result in a significant adverse effect, either alone or in combination with other proposals, on internationally designated site, will not be permitted unless a Habitats Regulation Assessment has concluded that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the habitats site qualifying features of the site’.
The above amendments would ensure that Policy DM10 appropriately considers both habitats and species.

It is recommended that sub-section (c) of Paragraph 5 in Policy DM10 is updated to state:
‘Development proposals that are likely to result in a significant adverse effect, either alone or in combination with other proposals, on internationally designated site, will not be permitted unless a Habitats Regulation Assessment has concluded that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the habitats site qualifying features of the site’.
The above amendments would ensure that Policy DM10 appropriately considers both habitats and species.

Policy DS04 seeks to protect the rural character, landscape and heritage assets within the district, and Point 3 relates to the Green Wedge around Leicester, Scraptoft and Bushby. The New Local Plan presents an opportunity to review the boundaries of the Green Wedge within the district, which comprises two areas: the Leicester / Scraptoft / Bushby Green Wedge and the Thurnby / Leicester/ Oadby Green Wedge.
The settlements of Bushby and Scraptoft are identified on the Key Diagram in the draft plan as settlements ‘adjoining the Leicester urban area’. However, Green Wedge policy continues to be shown separating Scraptoft from the LUA to the west. We again question why such levels of growth are directed to Scraptoft, which in terms of population size, is half that of Bushby and Thurnby (1,800 against 3,300 as per the 2011 census).
Since the New Local Plan will incorporate unmet housing needs arising from Leicester City, it is entirely appropriate that the spatial strategy seeks to provide for this growth in sustainable locations, particularly in the Leicester Urban Area settlements such as Bushby. These settlements are functionally related to Leicester and are served by good transport links, making them the most sustainable locations for growth in the district. These are also the settlements that are bound in part by Green Wedge designations.
The allocation for S1 – Scraptoft East, land between Scraptoft and Bushby for 950 dwellings sits over a historic area of Green Wedge designation, as identified under Policy DS04. In areas, the Green Wedge ‘gap’ which we assume performs the function of separation between Scraptoft to the north and Thurnby / Bushby to the south, is reduced to just 200m in width, when historically this gap has been more than double that width. This will mean that proposed allocation S1 will abut the conservation area boundary of Scraptoft, with the Green Wedge no longer performing a buffer function from the historic settlement core.
Although in ownership terms, the far western end of the site at Bushby is covered by Green Wedge policy designation, the site would be masterplanned as such to retain this land as open space land, thus not compromising the function of Green Wedge at this location. It is evident that proposed allocation TB1 land north of A47 and east of Zouche Way, has been designated to avoid any encroachment on the Green Wedge. Precisely the same approach could have been taken with land at Bushby, ensuring that the longevity of the Green Wedge is protected.
Concerning the proposed allocation at S1, there are some land ownership and access related issues that raise concerns. The south western land parcel, to the south of the Green Wedge, is owned by the Diocese, but is entirely landlocked, with Green Wedge to the north, and land owned by Jelson’s forming the remaining eastern parcel. Access into the Diocese land can only be obtained by coming through Jelson’s ownership. The entire southern parcel could only be delivered via access from Spencer Clarke Road.
In addition, it is not clear where the extent of development and Green Wedge with regard to S1 sits on the ground, given there are no notable field boundaries evident.
In terms of landscape sensitivity, under the Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (local plan evidence base), we can summarise that land at Bushby ref LR6 scores in the moderate to high categories, as does land at LR4 and LR5.
The area of Green Wedge dividing proposed allocation S1 at Scraptoft has only been identified in this location since the 2019 adopted local plan. Informing this designation was the LAN12 Leicester-Scraptoft-Bushby Green Wedge Background Report March 2018. The area of Green Wedge referred to in the document as sub-area B is assessed, and identifies, at paragraph 5.2.5, open fields off Station Lane as “playing a vital role in preventing the merging of Scraptoft village with the built up area to the south. This was recognised in Appeal Decisions APP/F2415/A/11/2160313, APP/F2415/A/11/2163769 relating to these fields. Despite a lack of 5 year supply of housing sites and a shortfall in the provision of affordable housing, the Inspector concluded that this was not sufficient to outweigh the serious adverse effect the proposed development would have on the perceived separation between Scraptoft and Thurnby / Bushby.”
The Council has, since this point, provided no evidence to update this position. The Green Wedge Assessment December 2024 listed under the supporting evidence does not go into sufficient detail.

Policy DS04 seeks to protect the rural character, landscape and heritage assets within the district, and Point 3 relates to the Green Wedge around Leicester, Scraptoft and Bushby. The New Local Plan presents an opportunity to review the boundaries of the Green Wedge within the district, which comprises two areas: the Leicester / Scraptoft / Bushby Green Wedge and the Thurnby / Leicester/ Oadby Green Wedge.
The settlements of Bushby and Scraptoft are identified on the Key Diagram in the draft plan as settlements ‘adjoining the Leicester urban area’. However, Green Wedge policy continues to be shown separating Scraptoft from the LUA to the west. We again question why such levels of growth are directed to Scraptoft, which in terms of population size, is half that of Bushby and Thurnby (1,800 against 3,300 as per the 2011 census).
Since the New Local Plan will incorporate unmet housing needs arising from Leicester City, it is entirely appropriate that the spatial strategy seeks to provide for this growth in sustainable locations, particularly in the Leicester Urban Area settlements such as Bushby. These settlements are functionally related to Leicester and are served by good transport links, making them the most sustainable locations for growth in the district. These are also the settlements that are bound in part by Green Wedge designations.
The allocation for S1 – Scraptoft East, land between Scraptoft and Bushby for 950 dwellings sits over a historic area of Green Wedge designation, as identified under Policy DS04. In areas, the Green Wedge ‘gap’ which we assume performs the function of separation between Scraptoft to the north and Thurnby / Bushby to the south, is reduced to just 200m in width, when historically this gap has been more than double that width. This will mean that proposed allocation S1 will abut the conservation area boundary of Scraptoft, with the Green Wedge no longer performing a buffer function from the historic settlement core.
Although in ownership terms, the far western end of the site at Bushby is covered by Green Wedge policy designation, the site would be masterplanned as such to retain this land as open space land, thus not compromising the function of Green Wedge at this location. It is evident that proposed allocation TB1 land north of A47 and east of Zouche Way, has been designated to avoid any encroachment on the Green Wedge. Precisely the same approach could have been taken with land at Bushby, ensuring that the longevity of the Green Wedge is protected.
Concerning the proposed allocation at S1, there are some land ownership and access related issues that raise concerns. The south western land parcel, to the south of the Green Wedge, is owned by the Diocese, but is entirely landlocked, with Green Wedge to the north, and land owned by Jelson’s forming the remaining eastern parcel. Access into the Diocese land can only be obtained by coming through Jelson’s ownership. The entire southern parcel could only be delivered via access from Spencer Clarke Road.
In addition, it is not clear where the extent of development and Green Wedge with regard to S1 sits on the ground, given there are no notable field boundaries evident.
In terms of landscape sensitivity, under the Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (local plan evidence base), we can summarise that land at Bushby ref LR6 scores in the moderate to high categories, as does land at LR4 and LR5.
The area of Green Wedge dividing proposed allocation S1 at Scraptoft has only been identified in this location since the 2019 adopted local plan. Informing this designation was the LAN12 Leicester-Scraptoft-Bushby Green Wedge Background Report March 2018. The area of Green Wedge referred to in the document as sub-area B is assessed, and identifies, at paragraph 5.2.5, open fields off Station Lane as “playing a vital role in preventing the merging of Scraptoft village with the built up area to the south. This was recognised in Appeal Decisions APP/F2415/A/11/2160313, APP/F2415/A/11/2163769 relating to these fields. Despite a lack of 5 year supply of housing sites and a shortfall in the provision of affordable housing, the Inspector concluded that this was not sufficient to outweigh the serious adverse effect the proposed development would have on the perceived separation between Scraptoft and Thurnby / Bushby.”
The Council has, since this point, provided no evidence to update this position. The Green Wedge Assessment December 2024 listed under the supporting evidence does not go into sufficient detail.

Part 4 of the draft policy lists out the infrastructure that will be required for new development. Such infrastructure is more often agreed on a site-by-site basis so it may be more appropriate to include these within site specific policies.
Part 6 of the draft policy relates to viability. The policy wording states that “a variation to the requirements set out in Policy within the Plan will only be accepted by the Council in exceptional circumstances”. However, the Policy provides no further information in relation to what would comprise exceptional circumstances. It is therefore recommended that this part of the Policy is revised to state ‘Variation to the requirements set out in Policy within the Plan will only be accepted by the Council where site specific evidence is provided by the applicant’. The Policy also states that a site-specific viability assessment ‘may be accepted’, and we recommend that this is replaced with ‘will be required’.

Allocation of the Bushby site would support and contribute to the wider strategic infrastructure required for the Scraptoft, Thurnby and Bushby sites (S1, S2 and TB1).
Part 4 of the draft policy lists out the infrastructure that will be required for new development. Such infrastructure is more often agreed on a site-by-site basis so it may be more appropriate to include these within site specific policies.
Part 6 of the draft policy relates to viability. The policy wording states that “a variation to the requirements set out in Policy within the Plan will only be accepted by the Council in exceptional circumstances”. However, the Policy provides no further information in relation to what would comprise exceptional circumstances. It is therefore recommended that this part of the Policy is revised to state ‘Variation to the requirements set out in Policy within the Plan will only be accepted by the Council where site specific evidence is provided by the applicant’. The Policy also states that a site-specific viability assessment ‘may be accepted’, and we recommend that this is replaced with ‘will be required’.

Through the pre-application engagement undertaken it is not considered that there are any significant constraints to development that could not be addressed through technical assessment and appropriate mitigation supporting a planning application. This has also been confirmed through the initial evidence base work undertaken and submitted with these representations. Therefore, land off Uppingham Road, Bushby, represents a significant opportunity for the sustainable growth of Bushby and to meet the needs of the New Local Plan early in the plan period.

Please refer to the uploaded documents Land off Uppingham Road, Bushby – Reps to the Evidence Base SA Statement and Land off Uppingham Road, Bushby – Site Opportunity and Promotion Statement submitted in response to the proposed plan objectives and policies DS03, SA01 and DM05.

Mulberry Land are promoting land off Uppingham Road in Bushby for allocation within this policy for residential-led development. Please see the appended documents for further information on the site opportunity, including evidence, and site promotion.