Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

Object

Representation ID: 13741

Received: 04/05/2025

Respondent: Davidsons Developments Limited and Jelson Homes Limited

Agent: Marrons

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The housing requirement should be reconsidered because no provision is made for: Leicester's unmet beyond 2036, or potential wider shortfalls in the HMA via a Statement of Common Ground to 2041. It would be prudent to address rather defer this issue to a plan review.
There is a clear and compelling case to test a higher housing requirement, through the SA process, to respond to these longer-term strategic challenges.
The plan should also support an uplift in delivery to address the acute need for affordable homes and provide a higher buffer of closer to 20% to address the inherent risks associated with the delivery of very-large scale development.
The overall apportionment of growth to the Leicester Urban Area follows the settement heirarchy. We agree generally that a balanced spatial distribution of growth should occur at all levels of the heirarchy allowing towns and villages to grow proportionately. Flexibility and contingency, in terms of the housing supply trajectory, can be delivered through allocatimng small and medium size sites in the more sustainable villages rather than cascading to settlements with less sustainability credentials.

Object

Representation ID: 13748

Received: 04/05/2025

Respondent: Davidsons Developments Limited and Jelson Homes Limited

Agent: Marrons

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Generally supportive of the retention of the extent of the Scraptoft Green Wedge. However we disagree with the fundamental conclusion of the Harborough Green Wedge Assessment, as it disregards the imperative to balance retention with the requirement to accomodate development needs in the most sustainable location.

Object to elements of the Green Wedge assessment including; the policy analysis, assessment findings regarding the contribution of sub-area GW1B (preventing merging, guiding development form) and the methodology for assessing recreational resource.
Agree the assessments recommendations about the Scraptoft East allocation are justified and can be addressed through appropriate masterplanning.

Support

Representation ID: 13754

Received: 04/05/2025

Respondent: Davidsons Developments Limited and Jelson Homes Limited

Agent: Marrons

We agree that all developments within the wider catchment, including Sites S2 and TB1, should make proportionate contributions toward the delivery of the primary school at Scraptoft East.
Limb 4c) of the policy is not justified and any planning condition or obligation securing this would be unreasonable.
Limb 4d) the measures to be delivered as part of the Transport Strategies within the bulleted list are not sufficiently focused and its not sufficiently clear that contributions should only be sought where proportionate to address the transport impacts of the specific development.

Object

Representation ID: 13762

Received: 04/05/2025

Respondent: Davidsons Developments Limited and Jelson Homes Limited

Agent: Marrons

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Concerns are raised about the need for and wording of policy criterion 1d, 1f, and 1g.
We agree its sensible to limit the number of very large sites to 1 per refined option. In respect of the site selection / assessment process we have a fundamental concern about the methodology Stage 3 criterion 6 (impact on Green Wedge) being an absolute constraint. Directing growth towards the Leicester Urban Area, must necessarily involve a review of Green Wedge, and the methodology should be amended or clarified to reflect the Councils approach.
The sites technical assessment demonstrates that it has no fundamental constraints that cannot be overcome. Supporting evidence is provided regarding Agricultural Land Classification. The need for a detailed Minerals Assessment is disputed.

Object

Representation ID: 13769

Received: 04/05/2025

Respondent: Davidsons Developments Limited and Jelson Homes Limited

Agent: Marrons

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Detailed concerns are raised about the Viability Report in terms of; the analysis of opportunities and constrains of the Scraptoft East site, engagement between the developer and the viability consultants, and the assumptions made in the report.

Support

Representation ID: 13772

Received: 04/05/2025

Respondent: Davidsons Developments Limited and Jelson Homes Limited

Agent: Marrons

The evidence on need is based principally on the District's ageing population, a national trend. The Written Ministerial Statement and PGG allows adoption of enhanced technical standards on an authority by authority basis based on local evidence including; accessibility and adaptability of the existing housing stock.
Policy is not currently justified by local evidence including how the threshold of 100 units and the percentage requirement relates to the overall scale of needs. Appropriateness of a blanket approach is questioned. Policy does not contemplate a scenario where there is a lack of demand, or for units to be delivered as market units should a lack of demand be evidenced.

Object

Representation ID: 13780

Received: 04/05/2025

Respondent: Davidsons Developments Limited and Jelson Homes Limited

Agent: Marrons

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Integrating self and custom-build plots within large-scale housing developments is challenging because it; is difficult to co-ordinate construction, poses health and safety risks, comes forward over much longer timeframes and is often not liable to Section 106 contributions towards infrastructure.
Self build should be encouraged using council-owned land or designating specific sites via negotiations with landowners.
Supportive of a mechanism to allow unsold plots to be built out as market housing, however 18 months is overly restrictive. Six months is adequate, with no requirement for plots to be available immediately to validly commence the marketing period.

Object

Representation ID: 13783

Received: 04/05/2025

Respondent: Davidsons Developments Limited and Jelson Homes Limited

Agent: Marrons

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Generally supportive of a policy requirement to safeguard residential amenity. Development should be opposed on amenity grounds only where it causes material or significant harm to users of nearby land and buildings—not based on subjective thresholds of “acceptability.”

Object

Representation ID: 13786

Received: 04/05/2025

Respondent: Davidsons Developments Limited and Jelson Homes Limited

Agent: Marrons

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Whilst generally supportive of a policy requirement to address landscape character and sensitivity, Part 1 d) of the policy refers to restoring and providing equivalent mitigation for damaged features and/or landscapes that would be damaged or degraded as a result of development. It is not clear what this element of the policy requires. It is clearly not practical, viable or developable to expect new development to restore or compensate for the loss of landscapes themselves as all new development will, by its nature, have a landscape impact.
Landscape features lost can be provided for where practicable.