Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

The Main Viability Report (January 2025) within the Council’s evidence base recommends a ‘blanket rate of 40% affordable housing across the District’. However, we would recommend that a site-by-site assessment is undertaken for larger sites to determine if 40% is viable. If it is found that larger sites cannot viably provide for 40% affordable housing provision, we recommend that additional sites are allocated over and above the District’s local housing need numbers to ensure that affordable housing requirements are met over the plan period.
The draft policy should also be revised in relation to the proposed tenure split of the affordable housing, to remove Point B of the Policy which states “b) The tenure split for the affordable housing will be as follows: (1) About 75% affordable or socially rented; and (2) About 25% affordable home ownership”; given that Point C states “the mix of size and type of new affordable housing development will be informed by the latest housing needs assessment”, which is considered much more appropriate to ensure that sites will be considered on an individual basis.
With the proposed growth strategy focussing the greatest amount of growth overall to large, medium and small villages, there is a risk that the smaller sites would not be able to meet the affordable housing requirements set out in emerging Policy HN01. This further enhances the case made earlier in these representations, which states that the growth strategy should focus more development on larger strategic sites that are more likely to be capable of providing the required affordable housing and infrastructure to meet the district’s needs. Land at Bushby should be considered as a suitable opportunity to deliver such benefits.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the adopted Local Plan also requires housing sites of 10 dwellings or more to provide 40% affordable housing, this is considered to be very high and we urge the Council to review this within the New Local Plan.
The Main Viability Report (January 2025) within the Council’s evidence base recommends a ‘blanket rate of 40% affordable housing across the District’. However, we would recommend that a site-by-site assessment is undertaken for larger sites to determine if 40% is viable. If it is found that larger sites cannot viably provide for 40% affordable housing provision, we recommend that additional sites are allocated over and above the District’s local housing need numbers to ensure that affordable housing requirements are met over the plan period.
The draft policy should also be revised in relation to the proposed tenure split of the affordable housing, to remove Point B of the Policy which states “b) The tenure split for the affordable housing will be as follows: (1) About 75% affordable or socially rented; and (2) About 25% affordable home ownership”; given that Point C states “the mix of size and type of new affordable housing development will be informed by the latest housing needs assessment”, which is considered much more appropriate to ensure that sites will be considered on an individual basis.
With the proposed growth strategy focussing the greatest amount of growth overall to large, medium and small villages, there is a risk that the smaller sites would not be able to meet the affordable housing requirements set out in emerging Policy HN01. This further enhances the case made earlier in these representations, which states that the growth strategy should focus more development on larger strategic sites that are more likely to be capable of providing the required affordable housing and infrastructure to meet the district’s needs. Land at Bushby should be considered as a suitable opportunity to deliver such benefits.

As set out in our client’s representations to the Regulation 18 Local Plan, setting M4(2)/ M4(3)A/ M4(3)B standards as a requirement for new homes in the district is not considered to be an appropriate approach to development since it would not take into consideration site characteristics or location, which may not be most suitable for those with access or mobility issues.
As set out in paragraph 63 of the NPPF (2023), housing needs for people with disabilities should be reflected in planning policy, this should be assessed as part of the plan making process for the New Local Plan and then an appropriate policy could be incorporated. However, a blanket policy for all sites is not considered to be a sustainable approach and could lead to homes in the wrong places for people with disabilities.

As set out in our client’s representations to the Regulation 18 Local Plan, setting M4(2)/ M4(3)A/ M4(3)B standards as a requirement for new homes in the district is not considered to be an appropriate approach to development since it would not take into consideration site characteristics or location, which may not be most suitable for those with access or mobility issues.
As set out in paragraph 63 of the NPPF (2023), housing needs for people with disabilities should be reflected in planning policy, this should be assessed as part of the plan making process for the New Local Plan and then an appropriate policy could be incorporated. However, a blanket policy for all sites is not considered to be a sustainable approach and could lead to homes in the wrong places for people with disabilities.

The draft policy does not clarify what comprises “supported and specialist forms of accommodation”, and it is recommended that the wording is revised to make clear what this entails.

Policy HN04 requires specialist housing for older people to be provided as an integral part of all residential developments over 100 dwellings; caveated by the wording that recognises the need for the site to offer a suitable location for the provision of this type of accommodation.
This caveat is welcomed, given only the most appropriate locations should be providing this type of accommodation within the District, acknowledging the need for accessibility to services and facilities. This notwithstanding, the draft policy does not clarify what comprises “supported and specialist forms of accommodation”, and it is recommended that the wording is revised to make clear what this entails.

The potential benefits of self and custom build development are recognised by the Promoter. However the draft policy should be amended to reflect local need, referencing the Council’s Self and Custom Build (SBCB) Register, and how design considerations will need to guide outcomes to ensure SBCB housing is complimentary to existing and proposed adjacent developments.

The potential benefits of self and custom build development are recognised by the Promoter. However the draft policy should be amended to reflect local need, referencing the Council’s Self and Custom Build (SBCB) Register, and how design considerations will need to guide outcomes to ensure SBCB housing is complimentary to existing and proposed adjacent developments.

The proposed natural and semi-natural greenspace requirement of 8.5ha per 1,000 population appears high and is significantly in excess of the Fields in Trust minimum natural and semi-natural greenspace requirement of 1.8ha per 1,000 population. The Council’s evidence base documents indicate provision varies across the District, with provision in some areas at 1.95ha.
The draft policy should therefore be amended to set more modest minimum requirements, and include a caveat to confirm the total requirements to be reviewed and assessed on an individual site basis. This would ensure that site specific constraints are considered, and the matters associated with meeting Biodiversity Net Gain requirements are considered, all of which would be derived from a site-specific design response.
Furthermore, much of the value in increasing the greenspaces across the District revolves around the quality of the provision, rather than the quantity. It would therefore be more beneficial to consider each site on an individual basis, allowing connections between networks to be made, rather than creating isolated pockets of Green and Blue Infrastructure, which could result from the currently proposed blanket approach to provisions.
In line with the above, it is recommended that the New Local Plan recognises how the Draft Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Local Nature Recovery Strategy (2025) presents key related evidence to Policy DM05 (as well as Policy DM10, as currently identified in Appendix 2). As demonstrated by the Concept Masterplan submitted, this site has the potential to incorporate habitat enhancements and Biodiversity Net Gains, including tree planting, and would use good design, for instance buffering the Local Wildlife Site through the location of SuDs and screening planting, to ensure the objectives of the Local Nature Recovery Strategy are achieved.
Similar to the above, it is acknowledged that the Playing Pitch Strategy presents a mixed picture in the provision for pitch and outdoor sports within the District (given an aging population, coupled with population growth anticipated to increase by c.12% to 2031). Again, this element of the draft policy should be updated to reflect the need to consider sites on an individual basis, reflecting local analysis relevant to each proposed development, and taking into consideration the most up to date needs evidence at the time of a planning application coming forward.

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 proposed natural and semi-natural greenspace requirement of 8.5ha per 1,000 population appears high and is significantly in excess of the Fields in Trust minimum natural and semi-natural greenspace requirement of 1.8ha per 1,000 population. The Council’s evidence base documents indicate provision varies across the District, with provision in some areas at 1.95ha.
The draft policy should therefore be amended to set more modest minimum requirements, and include a caveat to confirm the total requirements to be reviewed and assessed on an individual site basis. This would ensure that site specific constraints are considered, and the matters associated with meeting Biodiversity Net Gain requirements are considered, all of which would be derived from a site-specific design response.
Furthermore, much of the value in increasing the greenspaces across the District revolves around the quality of the provision, rather than the quantity. It would therefore be more beneficial to consider each site on an individual basis, allowing connections between networks to be made, rather than creating isolated pockets of Green and Blue Infrastructure, which could result from the currently proposed blanket approach to provisions.
In line with the above, it is recommended that the New Local Plan recognises how the Draft Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Local Nature Recovery Strategy (2025) presents key related evidence to Policy DM05 (as well as Policy DM10, as currently identified in Appendix 2 submitted with the reps). As demonstrated by the Concept Masterplan submitted, this site has the potential to incorporate habitat enhancements and Biodiversity Net Gains, including tree planting, and would use good design, for instance buffering the Local Wildlife Site through the location of SuDs and screening planting, to ensure the objectives of the Local Nature Recovery Strategy are achieved.
Similar to the above, it is acknowledged that the Playing Pitch Strategy presents a mixed picture in the provision for pitch and outdoor sports within the District (given an aging population, coupled with population growth anticipated to increase by c.12% to 2031). Again, this element of the draft policy should be updated to reflect the need to consider sites on an individual basis, reflecting local analysis relevant to each proposed development, and taking into consideration the most up to date needs evidence at the time of a planning application coming forward.

This policy is generally supported, however, some flexibility should be included to allow development “wherever possible” to minimise carbon emissions during construction. It is anticipated that this could be agreed as part of a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP).
In addition, it is noted that the policy makes reference to the Home Quality Mark requirement, this is imminently to be replaced by the BREEAM Residential scheme, to ensure the policy can be complied with, reference to the Home Quality Mark requirement should therefore be deleted from the policy. This notwithstanding, the BREEAM Residential scheme will go beyond Building Regulations requirements and would therefore need to be robustly tested through the Council’s viability assessment supporting the plan and fully evidenced.
Lastly, a caveat should also be included in the emerging policy to state that the submission of a site-specific viability assessment may be accepted where viability is identified as a barrier to delivery.

This policy is generally supported, however, some flexibility should be included to allow development “wherever possible” to minimise carbon emissions during construction. It is anticipated that this could be agreed as part of a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP).
In addition, it is noted that the policy makes reference to the Home Quality Mark requirement, this is imminently to be replaced by the BREEAM Residential scheme, to ensure the policy can be complied with, reference to the Home Quality Mark requirement should therefore be deleted from the policy. This notwithstanding, the BREEAM Residential scheme will go beyond Building Regulations requirements and would therefore need to be robustly tested through the Council’s viability assessment supporting the plan and fully evidenced.
Lastly, a caveat should also be included in the emerging policy to state that the submission of a site-specific viability assessment may be accepted where viability is identified as a barrier to delivery.

In relation to part 2a of the emerging policy, further clarification is sought in respect of what a ‘significantly greater’ quantity of housing/employment land agreed through an updated Statement of Common Ground, would comprise, and therefore at what threshold a full or partial update of the plan would be triggered.

In relation to part 2a of the emerging policy, further clarification is sought in respect of what a ‘significantly greater’ quantity of housing/employment land agreed through an updated Statement of Common Ground, would comprise, and therefore at what threshold a full or partial update of the plan would be triggered.