Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

The policy should be either removed or if not wording should be amended to make clear it is subject to site
suitability and viability on strategic sites.

We object to part 2 of the policy, which mandates that at least 10% of all dwellings in residential developments of 100 units or more must be specialist housing for older people, provided the site is suitable for such accommodation.

Table 7.6 of the Harborough Local Housing and Employment Land Evidence Report (February 2025) shows a need for 819 bedspaces by 2041. The policy's requirement for 10% of all dwellings to be specialist housing, totalling 1,318 dwellings, is not justified and exceeds the evidenced need, conflicting with NPPF paragraph 35(b).

Paragraph 14.31 suggests that larger strategic sites should provide specialist housing for older people to boost supply and housing delivery. The policy should apply only to strategic sites, which are not clearly defined. The Viability Report (January 2025) tests specific strategic sites, indicating these should deliver specialist accommodation. Furthermore, the Council should identify specific sites for specialist housing rather than relying on potentially unsuitable residential sites. The policy should be either removed or if not wording should be amended to make clear it is subject to site suitability and viability on strategic sites.
Not Sound: not positively prepared, not justified, not effective, not compliant with National Policy.

The requirement for 10% custom and self-build on developments of 40 dwellings should be removed from
the policy.

We object to Policy HN05, which requires non-specialist developments of 40 or more dwellings to provide at least 10% as self or custom build plots. This requirement should be determined case by case, based on the self-build register preferences.

The Harborough Local Housing and Employment Land Evidence Report (February 2025) shows a shortfall of 172 plots, reduced to 144 when including permissions for 28 plots given outline consent. The policy is unreasonable and exceeds the need, as the register is not means-tested and there is no obligation to provide land for everyone listed.

Additionally, self and custom build housing is difficult to plan for, and there is no evidence of high demand within new build estates. Such requirements should be based on local evidence and eligibility tests as per the planning practice guidance at paragraph 25 (Reference ID: 57-025-20210508). The requirement for 10% custom and self-build on developments of 40 dwellings should be removed from the policy.If your representation is more than 100 words, please provide a brief summary here:Please specify the modifications needed to make the Local Plan sound/legally compliant (Please note any non-compliance issue relating to the statutory Duty to Cooperate cannot be resolved through modification at examination). The requirement for 10% custom and self-build on developments of 40 dwellings should be removed from the policy.
Not Sound: not positively prepared, not justified, not effective, not compliant with National Policy.

We consider part 1 of the policy should be amended to state ‘Wherever possible development must be designed to ensure a good quality of experience for occupants and users and be easy to use for all, including people with disabilities, the elderly and others with accessibility issues’.

We consider part 1 of the policy should be amended to state 'Wherever possible development must be designed to ensure a good quality of experience for occupants and users and be easy to use for all, including people with disabilities, the elderly and others with accessibility issues'.

This would ensure that the policy is in accordance with paragraph 16 (b) of the NPPF which states: 'plans should be prepared positively in a way that it is aspirational but deliverable" and NPPF paragraph 35 (c) which requires plans to be effective and avoids applying unnecessary blanket requirements to development sites and paragraph 35 (b) which requires plans to be positively prepared in order to be sound.If your representation is more than 100 words, please provide a brief summary here:Please specify the modifications needed to make the Local Plan sound/legally compliant (Please note any non-compliance issue relating to the statutory Duty to Cooperate cannot be resolved through modification at examination). We consider part 1 of the policy should be amended to state 'Wherever possible development must be designed to ensure a good quality of experience for occupants and users and be easy to use for all, including people with disabilities, the elderly and others with accessibility issues'.
Not Sound: not positively prepared, not justified, not effective, not compliant with National Policy.

Part 1 of the policy should be removed or ‘high standard of design’ should be clearly define in the policy
wording or the supporting text.

We object to part 1 of the policy as written. It states: 'In areas with high heritage value (Conservation Areas, where affecting Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments and other heritage assets and their settings) development will be permitted where it achieves a high standard of design reflecting those characteristics that make these places special'.

It is not clear what a 'high standard of design' is and this could be subjective and is also not defined in the supporting text. It is considered, as written, the policy is not accordance with NPPF paragraph 16 d) which requires plans to be clearly written and unambiguous and paragraph 35 (c) which requires plans to be effective for them to be sound. Part 1 of the policy should be removed or 'high standard of design should be clearly define in the policy wording or the supporting text.
Not Sound: not positively prepared, not justified, not effective, not compliant with National Policy.

As written, the policy is therefore not in accordance with NPPF paragraph 35 (d) which requires plans to be
consistent with national policy in order to be sound. Part c) should be removed from the policy.

We object to part c) of the policy which states 'development must be located and designed in such a way that it is sensitive to its landscape setting and character area and will be permitted where it safeguards important public views, skylines and landmarks'. Views are not referenced in the NPPF and therefore this is considered onerous and includes criteria that goes beyond National Policy.

As written, the policy is therefore not in accordance with NPPF paragraph 35 (d) which requires plans to be consistent with national policy in order to be sound. Part c) should be removed from the policy.

The table included within part 2 of the policy should be removed or moved to the supporting text. The requirement for Natural and Semi Natural Greenspace should be reconsidered or sufficient evidence provided.

We consider table included within part 2 of the policy should be removed. As highlighted in part 1 of the policy, the Open Space Strategy (2021) only represents a 'snapshot in time' and therefore is likely to be updated throughout the plan period, providing more up to date requirements that developments will be expected to comply with. Therefore, the table which sets out the Local Standards included in the Open Space Strategy should be removed to ensure the policy is written in accordance with NPPF paragraph 16 d), which requires plans to be clearly written and unambiguous and also in accordance with paragraph 35 (a) and (b) which considers plans should be positively prepared and justified in order to be sound.

Additionally, BR finds the Natural and Semi Natural Greenspace Requirements (8.5 ha per 1,000 population) unjustified and potentially impactful on net developable areas, conflicting with NPPF paragraph 35(b) and paragraph 123, which requires efficient use of land.

The table included within part 2 of the policy should be removed or moved to the supporting text. The requirement for Natural and Semi Natural Greenspace should be reconsidered or sufficient evidence provided.

Part 2 should be amended to only ‘encourage’ the production of WLCAs as part of Energy and Sustainability Statements.

Part 2 of the policy requires a Whole Life Cycle Assessment (WLC). An accurate WLCA cannot be created early on due to the evolving nature of developments, materials, and supply chains. BR suggest that energy and sustainability statements are more appropriate, as WLCA is more of an aspirational monitoring tool. Part 2 should be amended to only 'encourage' the production of WLCAs as part of Energy and Sustainability Statements.

Not Sound: not positively prepared, not justified, not effective, not compliant with National Policy.

Part 3 limb a) should be clearer how the Council wants the assessment presented.

We object to part 3 of the policy, which prioritises development on lower-quality agricultural land (Grades 3b, 4, and 5) and permits development on high-quality land (Grades 1, 2, and 3a) only with an impact assessment and mitigation measures. The policy lacks clarity on how the assessment should be presented, making it inconsistent with NPPF paragraph 16(d), which requires clear and unambiguous policies.

Appendix 3: Monitoring Framework. This should include measurable triggers, and deliverable actions and review mechanisms should those not be met. Housing requirement should in the first instance be increased
to avoid having to undertake a full or partial update of the Local Plan once Leicester’s unmet need is confirmed (and how it will be distributed across the Housing Market Area).

Furthermore, the annual figure for Leicester’s unmet need (123 per year) should relate to the whole plan period and not just 2020 to 2036 given the unmet need is not likely to be resolved from 2036. To avoid the need for a full or partial review of the plan once adopted the housing requirement figure should be increased.

We welcome recognition of the need to monitor policies in part 1 of Policy IM01, but we consider this policy is not sufficient because it does not define measurable triggers or deliverable actions within the performance indicators and targets set out in Appendix 3: Monitoring Framework. This should include measurable triggers, and deliverable actions and review mechanisms should those not be met.

We note that the Council have included a requirement for a full or partial update of the Local Plan in part 2 of Policy IM01. However, as set out in our response to Policy DS01, the housing requirement should in the first instance be increased to avoid having to undertake a full or partial update of the Local Plan once Leicester's unmet need is confirmed (and how it will be distributed across the Housing Market Area).

Furthermore, the annual figure for Leicester's unmet need (123 per year) should relate to the whole plan period and not just 2020 to 2036 given the unmet need is not likely to be resolved from 2036. To avoid the need for a full or partial review of the plan once adopted the housing requirement figure should be increased.

Not Sound: not positively prepared, not justified, not effective, not compliant with National Policy.

See attachment.