Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission
Search representations
Results for Trustees of the Crane Estate and Mrs Jean Williams search
New searchSupport
Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission
Our Local Plan Vision
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.
See attachment.
Support
Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission
3.1
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.
See attachment.
Support
Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission
Policy DS01 Development Strategy: Delivering Homes
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.
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 number of site allocations within the Local Plan area including the Land South of Dunton Road, Broughton Astley. This would also contribute an additional 280 dwellings towards the evidenced needs for 1,176 dwellings.
See attachment.
Object
Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission
Policy SA01: Site Allocations
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.
The Crane Estate therefore wish to see the allocation of Land South of Dunton Road in order to increase the housing provision within Broughton Astley.
See attachment.
Object
Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission
Policy HN01 Housing Need: Affordable Homes
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.
See attachment.
Support
Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission
Policy HN03 Housing Need: Housing Type and Density
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.
See attachment.
Object
Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission
Policy HN04 Housing Need: Supported and Specialist Housing
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.
Part 2 of the policy should 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”
See attachment.
Object
Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission
Policy HN05 Housing Need: Self and Custom Build Housing
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.
Ammend policy HN05 wording to read: “To contribute to meeting demand for self and custom build plots, all nonspecialist development of 40 dwellings (gross) or more must provide approximately 5% of the total number of dwellings as self or custom build plots. 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.”
See attachment.
Support
Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission
Policy AP01: Development in Settlements
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.
See attachment.
Support
Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission
Policy DM05: Green and Blue Infrastructure and Open Space
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.
DM05 Part 1 - amend 'must' to 'should aim to'
DM05 Part 2 - amend 'will' to 'should aim to' and 'below' to 'where possible'. Add 'extra sentence 'Due consideration will be had to the individual merits of development proposals and the open space types provided onsite'
DM05 Open Space Standards. Local standards should be referred to as 'approximate local standards' and 'Approximate' added to the title of column 3 of the table.
See attachment.
