Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission
Search representations
Results for NS Consultancy Limited search
New searchObject
Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission
Policy DS01 Development Strategy: Delivering Homes
Representation ID: 13630
Received: 01/05/2025
Respondent: NS Consultancy Limited
Agent: Marrons
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The housing requirement should be re-considered in light of wider evidence in respect of affordable housing need and Leicester’s unmet need. A supply-side contingency of least 20% should be introduced to allow for flexibility. The SA process should consider higher growth scenarios across the refined distribution options which should also consider an option based on more limited growth to the tiers of settlements at the lower end of the hierarchy and a greater amount of growth at Lutterworth commensurate with its role and function, as well as its position in the settlement hierarchy.
Omission site put forward (Land at Glebe Farm & Lutterworth Allotments) as suitable for allocation.
Not sound: not positively prepared, not justified, not consistent with National Policy.
First, the HLP should contain a clear mechanism for addressing Leicester’s unmet need beyond 2036 should this arise. Whilst a review mechanism has been incorporated within the HLP, the PPG indicates that strategic policy-making authorities should cooperate to address cross-boundary matters and not defer these issues to subsequent reviews. Further land allocations or reserve sites should be identified to address Leicester’s unmet need should it arise in the current Plan period.
Second, the HLP and its evidence should consider whether an uplift to the housing requirement could be made, and further suitable, deliverable and sustainable sites allocated, to address the need for affordable housing.
Third, the SA should consider a “high growth” scenario across the refined options consistent with our wider observations in relation to the housing requirement and an approach that would apportion more growth to Lutterworth.
The approach to the HLP’s supply-side buffer should be re-considered to align with that consulted upon during the issues and options stage. A buffer of around 20% is appropriate and this should be reflected in the amount of land allocated for development.
See attachment/s.
Object
Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission
Policy DS01 Development Strategy: Delivering Homes
Representation ID: 13737
Received: 04/05/2025
Respondent: NS Consultancy Limited
Agent: Marrons
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The housing requirement should be reconsidered in light of wider evidence in respect of affordable housing and Leicester's unmet need. A supply-side contingency of at least 20% should be introduced to allow for flexibility. The SA process should consider higher growth scenarios across the refined distribution options, which should also consider an approach based on more limited growth to the tiers of settlements at the lower end of the heirarchy and a greater amount of growth at Lutterworth commensurate with its role and function, as well as its position in the settlement heirachy.
Omission site put forward (Land at Moorbarns Lane 24/10433) as appropriate for allocation.
Not sound: not positively prepared, not justified, not consistent with National Policy.
First, the HLP should contain a clear mechanism for addressing Leicester’s unmet need beyond 2036 should this arise. Whilst a review mechanism has been incorporated within the HLP, the PPG indicates that strategic policy-making authorities should cooperate to address cross-boundary matters and not defer these issues to subsequent reviews. Further land allocations or reserve sites should be identified to address Leicester’s unmet need should it arise in the current Plan period.
Second, the HLP and its evidence should consider whether an uplift to the housing requirement could be made, and further suitable, deliverable and sustainable sites allocated, to address the need for affordable housing.
Third, the SA should consider a “high growth” scenario across the refined options, consistent with our wider observations in relation to the housing requirement.
A buffer of around 20% is appropriate and this should be
reflected in the amount of land allocated for development.
A buffer of around 20% is appropriate and this should be
reflected in the amount of land allocated for development.
Whilst we consider a balanced approach between the Leicester Urban Area and the market towns to be justified, the spatial strategy current cascades significant growth toward the bottom end of the settlement hierarchy. The SA has not considered an approach that would apportion more growth to Lutterworth, which in our view would represent a more sustainable outcome. We encourage this to be considered through the SA process.
See attachment/s
