Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

Object

Representation ID: 13637

Received: 04/05/2025

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson North Midlands

Agent: Marrons

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

BDW considers the broad thrust of the HLP to be sound. However, appropriate provision should be made for addressing Leicester’s unmet need between 2036 and 2041.
The housing requirement should be re-considered in light of wider evidence in respect of affordable housing need. A supply-side contingency of least 20% should be introduced for flexibility. The SA process should consider higher growth scenarios across the refined distribution options, which should also consider an option based upon more limited growth to the tiers of settlements at the lower end of the hierarchy.
Gallow Field Road, Market Harborough has been rejected by virtue of its location within Foxton AoS without an objective review of the Foxton AoS. We therefore request that the site selection evidence base and the AoS Study us updated as appropriate.

Object

Representation ID: 13638

Received: 04/05/2025

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson North Midlands

Agent: Marrons

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Omission site Land at Gallowfield Road, Market Harborough (combining Site Reference 8019 Land West of Harborough Road and 8222 Land North of Gallowfield Road) is promoted for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 13773

Received: 02/05/2025

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson North Midlands

Agent: Boyer

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Assuming adoption in Dec. 2026, the plan period needs extending to achieve a minimum 15 year period.
- 2020 start date is inappropriate and should be 2025. Most of the evidence published after 2020.
- Council should commit to early review to meet increased housing requirement under new standard method.
- Vision should have regard to catering for Leicester City’s unmet need and effective delivery.
- Vision should state specifically the Plan's housing
requirement to outline clearly the aims of delivery across the plan period.
- Over reliance on large strategic sites. Needs greater emphasis on provision of smaller, more deliverable sites to complement larger schemes.
- Link between jobs and homes needs further consideration.

Object

Representation ID: 13775

Received: 02/05/2025

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson North Midlands

Agent: Boyer

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We question why the Council have decided to ‘water down’ the previous objectives drafted and consider the updated objectives do not accord with NPPF Paragraph 15.
We consider the revised objectives proposed as part of the Regulation 19 consultation are not reflective of the broad range of spatial planning issues currently present within the District. The objectives proposed at Regulation 18 stage were more appropriate and covered a broader range of topics than the revised objectives. On this basis we consider the Council should review the proposed objectives and ensure the accord with the aims of NPPF Paragraph 15.

Object

Representation ID: 13777

Received: 02/05/2025

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson North Midlands

Agent: Boyer

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

To meet the District's needs, the housing requirements should be reviewed to ensure a suitable level of housing is provided. As currently planned for, HDC are at risk of either not meeting the required 80% of the new standard method as per the transitional arrangements, or are at risk of breaching the Statement of Common Ground and not providing the agreed housing on behalf of Leicester City, as it has not been made clear which the Council are prioritising.
The housing distribution needs to ensure that the housing that is being delivered is distributed suitably where there has been a need for housing identified (i.e. large villages such as Fleckney). Currently, the Plan focuses only on the Leicester Urban Area/market towns.

Object

Representation ID: 13778

Received: 02/05/2025

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson North Midlands

Agent: Boyer

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We agree with the assessment as Fleckney as a
large village. We consider it is appropriate for a reasonable level of growth to be directed towards Fleckney to cater for housing need and also support and maintain the use of existing facilities and service provision. Although the proposed F1 housing allocation has been put forward for 150 dwellings we consider further growth and
development should be directed here to support the housing requirement across the District. The additional
allocation of the landowners site, which lies to the north of the proposed F1 allocation, is a sustainable location.

Object

Representation ID: 13779

Received: 02/05/2025

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson North Midlands

Agent: Boyer

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Site selection methodology: We welcome growth being directed to Fleckney but consider further allocations should be recognised in smaller settlement hierarchy tiers rather than overall provision to support growth across the plan period. The approval of Wistow Lodge Solar Farm has significantly impacted on Land west of Leicester Road's relationship with the surrounding countryside and perceived encroachment. Given this change in context, the site should be reassessed and carried forward for detail assessment as part of the Site Selection Methodology.

Object

Representation ID: 13784

Received: 02/05/2025

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson North Midlands

Agent: Boyer

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

- Housing delivery on the site (as set out in the trajectory) is overly optimistic both in terms of commencement and build out rate. This is supported by the Lichfield 'Start to Finish Report 3'.
- The site is a cross-boundary site. Time needs to be provided for within the Housing Trajectory to account for delays which may be incurred in working with two local authorities.
- Regarding affordable housing, the Viability Report found that the site is only marginally viable when a 40% requirement is applied.
- Contamination on site could create further delays.

Object

Representation ID: 13785

Received: 02/05/2025

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson North Midlands

Agent: Boyer

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Housing Trajectory provides a series of commencement years for the different sites, despite the allocation requiring a singular masterplan needing to be in place for all the sites. The Housing Trajectory should align with the proposed policy, to ensure that a carefully designed masterplan is brought forwards to provide direction for development across the allocation area. The commencement of delivery of the allocation should commence from 2032/33 to allow for agreement in how development is brought forward. Given the lack of consideration re: financial contributions or onsite infrastructure, the site should be put back in the Housing Trajectory to allow for greater certainty and details to be provided, to ensure that the site is viable.

Object

Representation ID: 13787

Received: 02/05/2025

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson North Midlands

Agent: Boyer

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The trajectory is overly optimistic in terms of when the site will start delivering dwellings and build out rate (Lichfield's Start to Finish Report). This should be reflected in the Housing Trajectory.
Marginal viability when providing 40% affordable housing on site and existing cumulative traffic issues, further support the need for the delivery of housing to be delayed in the trajectory to allow for additional time for confirmation the proposed allocation is indeed viable, with the ability to provide the affordable housing, with the needed mitigation works on the identified highways.