Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

The plan should revert to classifying Claybrooke Magna and Claybrooke Parva as a single combined settlement within the settlement hierarchy. This amendment will accurately reflect the historic and ongoing interdependence of these villages, recognising their shared community facilities, social interactions, and cohesive identity. Separating Parva as an unnamed hamlet negatively impacts the potential for sustainable, integrated development.

We strongly object to the reclassification of Claybrooke Magna and Claybrooke Parva from one combined settlement to separate entities, with Parva now categorised as an unnamed hamlet. Historically, both villages have functioned cohesively, sharing community facilities, services, and social ties. This change undermines the sustainability and potential for well-planned development that enhances both communities. Reinstating Claybrooke Magna and Claybrooke Parva as one settlement within the settlement hierarchy would accurately reflect their intertwined nature and support a logical, integrated approach to local development. We request this amendment to ensure clarity, fairness, and consistency in planning policy, particularly given our development interests.

The plan should adopt an approach similar to Stratford-on-Avon by explicitly supporting small-scale self and custom build schemes at suitable edge-of-settlement locations, rather than relying exclusively on percentage-based delivery within larger sites. Policy wording should state clearly: "Small-scale self and custom build schemes adjacent to settlement boundaries will be supported where infrastructure and design criteria are met." This ensures genuine self-build opportunities tailored to local character and demand, prevents viability loopholes commonly exploited by larger developers, and enables incremental, community-led growth. This targeted approach would strengthen self-build delivery, ensuring plots reach genuine self-builders rather than being diluted through viability negotiations.

Percentage-based self-build policies on larger developments frequently fail to deliver genuine self-build plots. Typically, major housebuilders demonstrate through viability assessments that such plots adversely affect project economics, enabling them to negotiate away these requirements. This practice leads to limited actual self-build opportunities, undermining policy intentions. Evidence from other authorities indicates that large-scale developers consistently opt for market housing instead, citing marketability and financial constraints. Therefore, effective self-build delivery necessitates targeted allocations or small-scale schemes rather than percentage-based provisions within larger developments, ensuring plots genuinely reach the self-build market and meet local demand without being diluted or removed through viability claims.