Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

Support

Representation ID: 13674

Received: 06/05/2025

Respondent: Trustees of the Crane Estate and Mrs Jean Williams

Agent: Twenty5

We support the recognition that the delivery of homes will bring about a range of benefits for residents and the local community and that proposals should be focussed in the most sustainable locations, adjacent to existing development.
The Crane Estate support the vision for the draft Local Plan and its timely adoption.

Support

Representation ID: 13676

Received: 06/05/2025

Respondent: Trustees of the Crane Estate and Mrs Jean Williams

Agent: Twenty5

On the whole, The Crane Estate support the Local Plan objectives in principle and their ability to meet the longer-term vision for Leicester and Leicestershire.

Support

Representation ID: 13678

Received: 06/05/2025

Respondent: Trustees of the Crane Estate and Mrs Jean Williams

Agent: Twenty5

There is a need for Harborough District Council to plan for a higher level of housing growth than the minimum Local Housing Needs as calculated using the Standard Method to: allow ongoing flexibility to ensure local and unmet housing needs can be met in full during the Plan period and any issues relating to affordability are addressed.

We do not support policy DS01 and consider that the policy as drafted is not currently positively prepared or effective for development.

Object

Representation ID: 13679

Received: 06/05/2025

Respondent: Trustees of the Crane Estate and Mrs Jean Williams

Agent: Twenty5

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The policy as drafted is not justified as it does not reflect
evidenced based needs. Further allocated sites are required to meet the Council’s housing requirements and as such restricting development within Broughton Astley to the BA1 allocation would not be appropriate. The Crane Estate do not consider the draft list of allocated sites to be
justified or based on sound evidence.
Omission site Land South of Dunton Road, Broughton Astley (24/12209) proposed for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 13680

Received: 06/05/2025

Respondent: Trustees of the Crane Estate and Mrs Jean Williams

Agent: Twenty5

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

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. If the affordable housing need alone is to be met, this will require 1,176
dwellings per year based on 40% affordable housing requirement.
The provision of 40% affordable housing onsite is supported. A 75% affordable / social rented and 25% affordable tenure split is broadly supported, although this needs to be expressed with flexibility to allow for change over time.

Support

Representation ID: 13681

Received: 06/05/2025

Respondent: Trustees of the Crane Estate and Mrs Jean Williams

Agent: Twenty5

The Crane Estate wish to emphasise that the densities included within the policy should be viewed as a minimum.

Object

Representation ID: 13682

Received: 06/05/2025

Respondent: Trustees of the Crane Estate and Mrs Jean Williams

Agent: Twenty5

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Based on the evidence, 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 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.
A quantum of 5% is more reasonable because; it will be better accommodated within development sites, there is no standard methodology for assessing the housing care needs of older people.

Object

Representation ID: 13684

Received: 06/05/2025

Respondent: Trustees of the Crane Estate and Mrs Jean Williams

Agent: Twenty5

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The requirement for ‘at least 10%’ self and custom build plots as currently drafted is not justified and not supported, because: 10% is excessive, and the availability of plots would significantly exceed demand leading to a range of issues e.g. security, fly tipping.
The inclusion of the proposed cascade mechanism is positive, but not practicable or suitable in reality and not supported due to build out implications and the phased approach of development. The requirement for a plot passport and design code is excessive, and fails to specify who would be responsible for preparing these and what the process would entail.

Support

Representation ID: 13685

Received: 06/05/2025

Respondent: Trustees of the Crane Estate and Mrs Jean Williams

Agent: Twenty5

The Crane Estates support the identification of Broughton Astley as a sustainable settlement capable of growth.

Support

Representation ID: 13686

Received: 06/05/2025

Respondent: Trustees of the Crane Estate and Mrs Jean Williams

Agent: Twenty5

Whilst The Crane Estates broadly support the principle and requirements of the policy, it is considered that in parts, the wording of the policy is too onerous and does not provide any flexibility, including in open space typologies. Standards prevent sites being considered on a site by site basis and on balance e.g. should a development not provide all typologies, but an excess of some.
Open Space Strategy (2021) is out of date.