1

Appendix B

Blaby District Local Plan (Delivery) Development Plan Document (DPD)

Summary of Regulation 18 consultation responses

Blaby District Council carried out a six week consultation (ending on Friday 31 May 2013) to seek views on what the scope of the forthcoming Allocations, Designations and Development Management DPD (subsequently referred to as the ‘Allocations DPD’) should be. The following is a summary of the responses received, by respondent:

Respondent (and customer reference

number)

Summary of response BDC response

Two local residents Allocations DPD should include new Local Green Space designation.

The Local Green Space designation should include the popular green space adjoining Bouskell Park (Blaby), including the Long Walk and surrounding countryside.

Noted. However, due to the very local nature of LGSs, it is more appropriate to designate them in Neighbourhood Plans than Local Plans.

The Blaby Neighbourhood Plan is considering the designation of a LGS in this location.

Taylor Wimpey Ltd Land at Barry Close, to the east of Kirby Muxloe (identified on an OS map provided) is recommended as a housing allocation in the Allocations DPD.

Noted. This site now benefits from planning consent, so there is no need for it to be allocated in the Delivery DPD.

Glenfield Parish Council

Comments are the same as those submitted in response to the Core Strategy Alternative Options (2008) consultation.

These comments have previously been noted in the production of the Core Strategy.

2

Specific comments are made in relation to where the SUE should be located, with the PC’s preferred option being the use of parts of all the sites (A,B and C).

Further comments are made in relation to specific sites, but the sites referred to are not identified on a map.

In terms of provision of an SES, the PC recommend a combination of alternative sites.

Further comments are made in relation to specific sites, but the sites referred to are not identified on a map.

The approach of using a settlement hierarchy is supported but more info is needed, particularly re. the mass and scale of development.

There are issues re. congestion and parking at the Motorways Retail Area and any future development should include improved traffic management and additional vehicle parking.

The PC supports ‘managed growth’ of the MRA where there would be no significant adverse impacts on ‘town centres’, and where the sustainability of the area would be improved’.

Land outside the existing Green Wedges is preferable for development to land within them, but if there is no alternative, development should be in the least sensitive areas of the Green Wedge. Through development, additional Green Wedge land

The broad location of the SUE was determined through the adopted Core Strategy and planning permission has since been granted.

The Council will explore all potential development sites through the Delivery DPD, including examination of constraints.

The broad location of the SES was determined in the adopted Core Strategy, and planning permission has been granted.

The Council will explore all potential development sites through the Delivery DPD, including examination of constraints.

The settlement hierarchy now forms a part of the adopted Core Strategy, Policy CS5.

Noted. Core Strategy Policy CS13 provides criteria that need to be met for any further development of the MRA to be considered acceptable.

Noted. Core Strategy Policy CS13 provides criteria that need to be met for any further development of the MRA to be considered acceptable.

Noted. The Green Wedge boundaries will be reviewed through the Delivery DPD and amended, where necessary, to reflect how they function. It will also explore the opportunity for a new Green Wedge in

3

should be identified.

Green Wedges protect wildlife and settlement identity.

The PC supports the option to set out a specific site and a criteria based policy that seeks to guide the location of renewable energy.

The provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites will need to be looked at.

Green, transport and infrastructure studies need to be completed to support any key decisions.

association with the new development at Lubbesthorpe as per Policies CS3 and CS16.

Noted.

Noted. Core Strategy Policy CS21 does include criteria for the use of renewable energies. The Delivery DPD will not allocate any renewable energy sites.

Agreed. The Delivery DPD will address this, and is currently awaiting the evidence in the latest Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Assessment

Noted. All necessary evidence will be collected in preparing the Delivery DPD.

FP North Ltd The Local Plan allows for managed growth at Fosse Park.

FP North Ltd is working with BDC through the Visioning Exercise and the output of this should be incorporated into the Allocations DPD.

There should be a review of where future development needs at Fosse Park are best located, whether boundaries need to change, whether issues like flooding need to be assessed (and how), overall traffic patterns and accesses onto the existing road network etc

Measures to make the Motorways Retail Area more sustainable should be considered, recognising that changes will need to be promoted alongside, and

Agreed, subject to a number of criteria.

Noted. Relevant outputs from such an exercise will be considered and, where appropriate, incorporated into the DPD.

Disagreed. The requirements set out in the supporting text of Policy CS13 do not indicate a need to provide for further floorspace at Fosse Park, so these issues will not be explored through the Delivery DPD.

Agreed. Core Strategy Policy CS13 makes explicit mention of the need to incorporate sustainability measures into any further

4

funded by, the planned managed growth.

Consideration should be given to changing the name from ‘Motorways Retail Area’ to ‘Fosse Park Area’.

There should be inclusion of a mini sequential test

There should be revised wording to replace the original unit floorspace thresholds

The DPD, supported by an evidence framework, should be a framework for delivering managed growth which has not been achieved in the interim.

growth at Fosse Park.

Disagree. The term ‘Motorways Retail Area’ is used in the recently adopted Core Strategy, so is still relevant.

Disagreed. Policy CS13 provides the context for the planning of further growth at the Motorways Retail Area.

Disagreed. The use of the original unit floorspace thresholds In Policy CS13 were approved by the CS Examination Inspector.

The Core Strategy makes provision for managed growth at Fosse Park, subject to criteria, and sets out the floorspace needs.

David Wilson Homes Land to the west of Grace Road, Sapcote has been identified as a site suitable for a housing allocation.

The approach of sites allocations being done through the Fosse Villages NDP instead of through the Allocations DPD is strongly objected to. It is considered inappropriate for a local planning authority to delegate its responsibility to allocate sufficient development land to meet the housing requirements to the Neighbourhood Development Plans without providing sufficient guidance and advice.

The Allocations DPD should establish sufficient strategic policy guidance to ensure the Neighbourhood Plan parishes are guided by a clear

Noted. This site now benefits from planning permission.

Disagreed. The Government has made it clear that neighbourhoods have the power to plan for their own communities, including allocating development land, through the Neighbourhood Plan process. The Fosse Villages Neighbourhood Plan group has been approved as a Neighbourhood Area and therefore has the right to allocate sites, and intend to do this through the emerging Neighbourhood Plan. The Council’s Delivery DPD will not duplicate this work.

The Core Strategy provides the strategic policy guidance. Any elements not being picked up by the Fosse Villages

5

policy framework, and the FVNDP should therefore not be excluded from the Allocations DPD.

Neighbourhood Plan will be covered by the Delivery DPD.

Gladman Developments

The Allocations DPD should include flexibility for when housing doesn’t deliver as expected and clarify that the authority will seek to maintain a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites, and sometimes this is achieved through sustainable sites that don’t benefit from an allocation.

Housing should be distributed to a broader selection of sites to support the Plan’s strategy to avoid delays associated with SUEs - Concerns over whether the Lubbesthorpe can provide required number of homes, delivery unlikely to begin until 2016/17 at earliest and provision of 300+ dwellings per year is optimistic –significant housing shortfall.

There should be an over allocation of sites over and above the requirements in the CS to deliver in place of allocations that fail to come forward, come forward at a slower rate than anticipated or do not deliver the expected number of dwellings.

Growth should be directed to key settlements with sustainability credentials, ie, access to jobs, housing, facilities, key services and infrastructure.

Noted, the Delivery DPD will be sufficiently flexible, and accord with national policy. The Plan will allocate sites that are considered deliverable over the plan period (and will be tested as such through Examination), as per the plan-led system. Furthermore, proposed Development Management Policy 1 will provide additional flexibility in terms of development within the settlement boundaries.

Noted. The Delivery DPD will explore the need to allocate further sites in accordance with the spatial strategy in the CS in view of the delayed start to development at Lubbesthorpe. The delivery rates of Lubbesthorpe will also be reviewed as part of this exercise.

Disagreed. The Delivery DPD will review the SUE delivery rate and look at the delivery of other allocations made, which will be tested at Examination in Public (EiP) to ensure delivery over the plan period. So there is no need to over allocate sites beyond CS requirements.

Agreed. This was the approach taken in the Core Strategy Policy CS5, justifying the PUA focussed approach, found sound at EiP

6

Identification of land at Hospital Lane, Blaby (on an OS map) as an appropriate allocation.

Noted. The Council will explore all potential development sites through the Delivery DPD. However, site was refused planning permission by the Planning Inspectorate and the minimum requirement in Policy CS5 has been met for Blaby.

Fosse Villages Neighbourhood Plan Board

The Fosse Villages Neighbourhood Plan intends to make land allocations and site specific proposals, including sites for housing, G & T, employment, retail, recreation / open space, nature conservation.

The FV Neighbourhood Plan will: contain policies relating to proposals requiring site specific conditions such as design guidance and protection of open areas; define / review limits to built up areas, Areas of Separation and Green Wedges; identify local employment growth opportunities; coordinate the necessary social, physical, GI needed to support development, and; address other local planning issues arising through community engagement

Preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan is coordinated with the preparation of the Allocations DPD to avoid duplication of effort and confusion to developers, stakeholders and councillors etc. An open dialogue needs to be maintained.

Noted.

Noted.

Agreed. The Fosse Villages Neighbourhood Plan group and Blaby District Council will maintain dialogue through development of the respective documents to avoid duplication of work etc.

Local resident The green space in Blaby that adjoins Bouskell Park including the Long Walk and surrounding countryside should be included in the Allocations DPD as a new Local Green Space designation as it

Noted. However, due to the very local nature of LGSs, it is more appropriate to designate them in Neighbourhood Plans than Local Plans. The Blaby Neighbourhood

7

meets the NPPF criteria. Plan is considering the designation of a LGS in this location.

Local resident The land around Bouskell Park and the Long Walk (Blaby) should be designated as a Local Green Space.

Noted. However, due to the very local nature of LGSs, it is more appropriate to designate them in Neighbourhood Plans than Local Plans. The Blaby Neighbourhood Plan is considering the designation of a LGS in this location.

Local resident The Green Space in Blaby which adjoins Bouskell Park and includes the Long Walk and surrounding countryside should be designated as a new Local Green Space designation (as it meets the NPPF criteria).

Noted. However, due to the very local nature of LGSs, it is more appropriate to designate them in Neighbourhood Plans than Local Plans. The Blaby Neighbourhood Plan is considering the designation of a LGS in this location.

Sarah Rudkin, Leicestershire County Council

It’s assumed the distribution of housing numbers across the District will accord with the minimum numbers set out in the CS and be consistent with the policies in the draft Housing Mix and Affordable Housing SPD in terms of determining a size threshold for “plan” allocations.

In assessing sites, potential to deliver affordable housing and supported living accommodation in accordance with draft SPD should be considered.

With neighbourhood planning having responsibility for determining allocations in their area, a protocol should be developed to accommodate the dual approach together and parallel consultation provisions for proper engagement with NP process.

In allocating employment sites, it is assumed sites

The Delivery DPD will deliver the requirements set out in the Core Strategy, and will accord with the relevant SPDs. There is no size threshold for allocations, although ability to provide affordable housing will be a consideration in site selection.

Agreed. The potential to deliver housing in accordance with the adopted SPD will be considered.

Noted. The Fosse Villages Neighbourhood Plan group and Blaby District Council will maintain a dialogue throughout the process to ensure the two documents are produced successfully in parallel.

Employment site allocations will be made in

8

will be delivered in locations to best serve areas of proposed population growth whilst minimising the impact of HGV traffic generation and emissions.

In reviewing limits to development, account needs to be taken of settlement edge farmsteads. Inclusion of the footprint of all buildings serving the farm within the limits of development would facilitate a more flexible approach to re-use of the site if buildings become redundant.

accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS6, using the available evidence base and consideration of sustainability credentials.

Noted. The limits to development for all settlements in the District will be reviewed and this issue will be considered as part of the Delivery DPD.

Kasi Hussain, Environment Agency

The Allocations DPD needs to align with the Water Framework Directive (WFD).

Where possible, all developments in the District should seek opportunities to restore and enhance waterbodies.

As a minimum, developments should comply with the WFD ‘no deterioration’ policy (Article 4)

As BDC sits wholly within the Humber River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) area, the Local Plan should be updated to reflect measures outlined in the Humber RBMP, annexe C.

The Council and developers should consider the feasibility of river restoration, habitat creation and the removal of redundant artificial features within river corridors.

Proposed development in the Allocations DPD should avoid impacting on all statutory nature conservation designations in District, ie, SSSIs.

Where development allocations are likely to have an

Noted. It has been considered in the preparation of the Delivery DPD.

Where opportunities arise, the Council will encourage that this be explored in discussions with the Environment Agency.

Noted. The Council will consult with the Environment Agency (amongst others) on the various development options.

Noted. The Local Plan (Core Strategy) is adopted, and the EA will be consulted on the development site options and policies as the Delivery DPD progresses.

Noted. Where such actions may be appropriate in association with development, they will be explored. Bio-diversity is broadly addressed in Policy CS19.

Noted. The impact on such designations will be considered, and will follow the approach set out in CS19, and the NPPF.

Core Strategy Policy CS19 sets out the

9

adverse affect on the features of a SSSI, appropriate mitigation and habitat compensation must be provided which aims to be bigger, better and more connected within the landscape.

In line with the NPPF, Local Wildlife Sites (LWSs) should be identified and mapped within the District’s Local Plan and any development allocations / proposals avoid these areas of habitat to ensure they continue to provide important conservation benefits. Where not possible, appropriate mitigation and habitat compensation must be provided.

It is advisable that the boundary of development sites is not immediately adjacent to a watercourse to avoid any adverse impacts to the WFD status / potential of a given watercourse within the District. To avoid adverse impacts, development sites should be located with an appropriate buffer between the site boundary and banks of the watercourses, and these watercourses should not be incorporated into the domestic gardens of any proposed property.

Development allocations that would require access across a watercourse via a new culvert / roadway or the installation of a weir / dam should be discounted in the first instance. Where this is not possible, the LPA should take the WFD into account at the planning application stage.

Protection and enhancement of controlled waters via planning and redevelopment of contaminated land is encouraged as it provides an opportunity to

Council’s approach towards development that will have an adverse affect on SSSIs.

Noted. Identification and mapping of constraints such as Local Wildlife Sites will be done as part of the evidence base supporting the policies. The approach to development on such sites is addressed in Policy CS19.

Noted. The boundary of the proposed development site may not necessarily reflect where the edge of the built development will lie. In any event, the Environment Agency will be consulted on the site allocations and can advise accordingly on necessary buffers in relation to watercourses.

Noted. This will be taken into account, amongst other considerations, when assessing the various site options.

Noted.

10

remove areas of contamination that would otherwise continue to present a risk.

Adequate site investigation and remediation should be carried out and groundwater pollution issues be addressed as part of brownfield redevelopment.

The Allocations DPD should include an objective or policy to ’protect and enhance the wider environment’ giving particular attention to dealing with controlled waters and land contamination.

There should be a standalone flood risk policy in the Allocations DPD that should accord with the NPPF (ie, a sequential approach to locating development).

The policy should define how the sequential test approach will be applied to guide development, and give a more locally based requirement of how the exception test will be applied.

The inclusion of the requirement to consider opportunities to provide a positive impact on flood risk through taking action wherever possible to reduce flood risk on a wider catchment scale, potentially reducing downstream flood risk, is recommended.

The policy should include requirements for new developments to provide positive gains to any watercourses which are impacted by the proposals, where possible. This should ensure there is no detriment to the setting of the watercourse, and that access for improvements or maintenance is not adversely impacted. Culverting of watercourses

Agreed. There is a proposed land contamination and pollution Development Management policy in the Delivery DPD.

Noted. The Objectives are set out in the Core Strategy. There is a proposed land contamination and pollution Development Management policy in the Delivery DPD.

Disagreed. There is a flood risk policy in the Core Strategy, CS22, which accords with NPPF.

Disagreed. Beyond CS22, it is considered that the NPPF provides sufficient guidance on the application of the sequential and exception tests. No further detail is needed.

Noted. Core Strategy Policy CS22 seeks to encourage development to reduce overall flood risk. Consideration of site allocation options will include impacts on flood risk.

Noted. The Council will consider impacts on watercourses as part of the identification of sites and the Environment Agency will be consulted accordingly. New development will accord with the requirements of Policy CS22 and the NPPF.

11

should be avoided, other than for access, and where possible, should look to open up sections of existing culverted watercourses.

Increased waste water and sewage effluent from new developments will need to be dealt with to ensure no deterioration in water course quality. Expansion and upgrading of current sewage treatment systems may be required.

Does the Wanlip Sewage Treatment Works have the capacity to accept the flows from the future growth in Blaby? Severn Trent Water must prove that the increase in foul waste water entering the sewerage system will not cause any deterioration in the operation of any combined sewer overflows on the system either upstream or downstream of development. There must be no increase in the spill frequency or volume of the combined sewer overflows on the sewerage network and additional flow must not create the need for any new combined sewer overflows. If sewerage network doesn’t have capacity to accept flows, development must be phased in with upgrading of network and foul flows should only enter system once upgrading work is complete.

Severn Trent Water need to confirm the sewage treatment works have enough capacity in the consented dry weather flow to accept all the foul flow from further developments.

EA recommends that any new homes should

Agreed. Environment Agency and Severn Trent Water Ltd will be consulted in the development of the Delivery DPD, and consideration of site allocation options.

Noted. Severn Trent Water have been engaged in the process as the Core Strategy was developed and have not indicated that the housing requirement as set out cannot be accommodated. Blaby District Council will continue dialogue with Severn Trent Water Ltd in the preparation of the Delivery DPD to ensure delivery of the developments is acceptable. Severn Trent Water has been consulted, and this dialogue will continue as the Delivery DPD progresses.

Noted. Severn Trent Water will be consulted on the Delivery DPD as it progresses.

Noted. The Government has removed the

12

achieve the ‘water efficiency component’ of level 3/4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes (minimum) which are currently voluntary for privately built housing. This should not compromise the achievement of zero carbon.

For non-residential buildings, developers should demonstrate that they have considered water efficiency and conservation in the design and maintenance. Developers should aim for BREAM very good or excellent standards, and the need to score maximum points on water is requested. The need to meet a specific level should be included.

The Plan should make reference to the Water Framework Directive in relation to water quality and water resources.

LPAs should ensure opportunities to maximise waste reuse and recycling are integrated into all types of developments as a key planning consideration.

‘Design’ type policies should contribute positively towards resource efficiency and sustainable management of waste throughout the lifecycle of developments.

There should be sufficient buffering between different land uses (ie, residential and industrial) to avoid disadvantage through amenity issues.

Code for Sustainable Homes and introduced building regulations with an option to require higher levels. There is no evidence to justify a requirement beyond national standards with regard to efficiency levels in new developments. New developments will be required to meet the national standards through Building Regulations.

Noted. Policy CS21 sets out how the Council expects developments to be built in terms of reducing energy demand and increasing efficiency. There is no evidence to justify requirements to meet specific standards beyond those required through Building Regulations.

The Delivery DPD will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive

Noted. Policy CS23 addresses the Council’s strategic approach to waste, and opportunities to deal with waste effectively will be a consideration when allocating sites.

Noted. There are policies within the adopted CS that address these issues.

Agreed. Amenity of various neighbouring uses will be considered when assessing development options, and drafting policies.

13

Exposing new sensitive receptors to perceived or actual environmental and human health impacts should be avoided. Should be addressed through policy.

Noted. The assessment of various development options and drafting of policies will take account of these concerns and whether mitigation measures could be used, for example, air quality.

Local resident The green space in Blaby that adjoins Bouskell Park and includes the Long Walk and surrounding countryside should be designated as a Local Green Space in the Allocations DPD.

Noted. However, due to the very local nature of LGSs, it is more appropriate to designate them in Neighbourhood Plans than Local Plans. The Blaby Neighbourhood Plan is considering the designation of a LGS in this location.

Local resident The green space in Blaby that adjoins Bouskell Park and includes the Long Walk and surrounding countryside should be designated as a Local Green Space in the Allocations DPD.

Noted. However, due to the very local nature of LGSs, it is more appropriate to designate them in Neighbourhood Plans than Local Plans. The Blaby Neighbourhood Plan is considering the designation of a LGS in this location.

Stephen Mair, Andrew Granger & Co.

A number of sites were submitted as site allocations for the DPD:

Land east of Chestnut Close, Littlethorpe Land at Seine Lane, Enderby Land at Foston Lane, Countesthorpe Land off Vicarage Lane, Blaby / Glen Parva The Vicarage, Station Road, Countesthorpe Land rear of 57-65 Gynsill Lane, Anstey Land off Narborough Road, Cosby Land at Warwick Road, Littlethorpe Land off Cork Lane, Glen Parva Land off Lutterworth Road, Blaby

Noted. The Council will explore all potential development sites through the Delivery DPD, including the ones submitted, where there is a need to allocate further land beyond what is already built and committed, in accordance with Policy CS5.

14

Land off Maytree Drive, Kirby Muxloe Land off Hinckley Road, Leicester Forest East Land off Lutterworth Road, Whetstone Land off Swan Close, Glen Parva Land off Hinckley Road, Leicester Forest East

Joanne Althorpe, Pegasus Planning Group

The DPD will need to allocate sites to meet the Council’s objectively assessed housing need.

The Council should adopt a flexible approach towards allocating further sites in Whetstone (beyond what’s already built and committed) in light of uncertainties in the delivery of other commitments, and doubts over their capacity.

The Allocations DPD should revise the settlement boundary for Whetstone and consider the land south of Whetstone off Springwell Lane (identified on a map) as a potential housing allocation.

Noted. Allocation of sites will reflect the housing need set out in the Core Strategy.

Policy CS5 is clear that the requirement for Whetstone is a minimum of 365 dwellings (which has been met and exceeded), so no further sites will be allocated in Whetstone. Delivery of sites will be tested at the EiP.

Noted. This site now has the benefit of planning permission, and is under construction. So will not be considered for a site allocation.

Graham Harris Partnership Ltd

A number of sites previously submitted to the SHLAA should continue to be considered as part of the Allocations DPD.

Additionally, a new site is submitted (and identified on a map) for consideration as an allocation – site of clubhouse and land / pitch south of Ridley Close, Lutterworth Road, Blaby

Agreed. SHLAA sites will continue to be considered, particularly where the minimum numbers in Policy CS5 have not been met.

Noted. This site now has the benefit of planning permission, so there is no need to consider it further as an allocation.

Aggregate Industries Three proposed allocations are suggested for the land in and around the Croft Quarry: o Proposed housing allocation on land currently

occupied by AI’s Croft office complex (but unlikely to come forward until latter end of the plan period);

Noted. The Council will continue to explore all potential development sites and other designations through the Delivery DPD, including these. However, initial discussions highlight uncertainty about potential timescales.

15

o Proposed mixed use allocation on land currently occupied by AI’s Croft Quarry (and recommend the Council designate it as a Special Protection Area in the Local Plan to establish a general after-use principle); and

o Proposed ‘Area of Separation’ on land to north east of Croft Quarry and to the south of Huncote (to protect the quarry, and potential new residents, from unsuitable development so close to a fully operational quarry, and in order to avoiding blurring the distinction of identities between Huncote and Croft).

Local landowner Land is identified (on a map) at The Farm, Station Street, Whetstone as a suggested housing allocation (but it could also be appropriate as commercial development if circumstances change)

Noted. The Council will explore all potential development sites through the Delivery DPD, although Whetstone has met its minimum housing requirement in CS5.

Local landowner Two recommended allocations are identified in Whetstone (on a map) for inclusion in the Allocations DPD: o Former caravan site, between Station Street

and Enderby Road, Whetstone o Land off Station Street, Whetstone

Noted. The Council will explore all potential development sites through the Delivery DPD, although Whetstone has met its minimum requirement in CS5.

Leicester Forest East Parish Council

There is already a planned supply of housing within the District until 2026, so additional one off and uncoordinated developments should not be considered and should be rejected. Deviation from the Local Plan should not be acceptable.

Disagreed. The Core Strategy policies and housing trajectory indicate the quantum of housing to be delivered and timing but does not identify the specific sites on which it will be delivered, beyond Lubbesthorpe. Evidence at this point suggests that further housing sites are likely to need identification

16

and allocation through the Delivery DPD to meet the housing need as required in the CS up to 2029.

Glen Parva Parish Council

There is very little development land available in Glen Parva.

The floodplain in the Parish should not be developed.

Existing green and open spaces should be retained, including the open space in front of The Manor Pub at The Ford / Little Glen Road as this is the historical centre of the parish and a sensitive site

The planning permission for development at the Grange Ford site off Little Glen Road should retain the existing site character and adjacent public rights of way

The Local Nature Reserve should be protected and enhanced

There should be no extension to built development limits to the south of Little Glen Road or to the west of The Bridle and the Featherby Drive housing estate.

The status of a specific estate road should be confirmed with a view to it being adopted by the Highways Authority.

The Parish Council listed a number of open spaces it has protected through the Fields in Trust.

Noted.

Noted. The approach to development and flood risk is outlined in Policy CS22.

Noted. Core Strategy Policy CS15 sets out the approach to open space, sport and recreation sites.

Noted. Planning permission has already been granted for this site.

Noted. Policy CS19 outlines the broad approach to Local Nature Reserves.

Noted. The limits to built development will be reviewed throughout the District.

This is not an issue relevant to the Delivery DPD. Parish Council should contact the Highways Authority directly.

Noted.

Roger Yarwood, National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups

It is assumed the Allocations DPD will include provision for Gypsies and Travellers and the NFGLG wish to be involved in further consultations

Agreed. The Delivery DPD will include provision for Gypsy and Travellers in line with the latest evidence (currently being

17

relating to this. collected), and this will be consulted on.

Local resident The Allocations DPD provides the opportunity to protect important areas of green space by designating them as Local Green Spaces.

The Long Walk woodland and its immediately surrounding countryside (adjacent to Bouskell Park), Blaby should be designated as a Local Green Space in the Allocations DPD.

Noted. Due to the very local nature of LGSs, it is more appropriate to designate them in Neighbourhood Plans than Local Plans.

The Blaby Neighbourhood Plan is considering the designation of a LGS in this location.

Countesthorpe Parish Council

Countesthorpe has already seen considerable development (over 500 new homes built / committed) and the Parish Council would like to confirm no further housing development in the village in the Allocations DPD.

Noted. Countesthorpe has accommodated its minimum requirement set out in CS5 and there is no evidence at this point to suggest further housing allocations are required here.

Local resident Parking charges in Blaby have caused parking problems in South Wigston – overcrowding in the car parks and local roads jammed with cars

People from Leicester have been forced to move out to the villages of Huncote etc, meaning these villages have expanded vastly in recent years, and due to limited work opportunities in the villages, most families need 2 or more cars because of limited public transport.

A large car park should be built on the edge of Blaby for the Silver bus to enable people to travel to the hospital etc (free if necessary)

There should be work provision built in the villages – factory units which should be cheap to rent.

Parking charges is not an issue that can be addressed through the Delivery DPD.

Noted.

Noted.

The Delivery DPD will seek to provide employment land, and opportunities to provide rural employment sites will be considered.

18

There should be a professional group to help new businesses get started and expand, and to help them export goods.

The need for people to travel to town for work should be stopped.

There should be recreational facilities provided, in Broughton, for example, ie a swimming pool etc

This is not an issue which can be addressed through the Delivery DPD.

Noted. The adopted Core Strategy pursues an urban concentration approach to promote sustainable development patterns. However people still have a choice of where they choose to live and work.

The Delivery DPD can only deal with areas within the District of Blaby, ie, not Broughton.

Local resident The area adjoining Bouskell Park known as the Long Walk, wooded area and footpath linking to the cemetery and fields between and to Mill Lane listed as a Local Green Space designation.

Would it be possible for people of Blaby to buy adjoining fields and make into a nature reserve?

Noted. Due to the very local nature of LGSs, it is more appropriate to designate them in Neighbourhood Plans than Local Plans. The Blaby Neighbourhood Plan is considering the designation of a LGS in this location.

Beyond the scope of the Delivery DPD. This would need to be discussed with the relevant parties, ie, the landowner etc.

The Theatres Trust There should be criteria to encourage provision of new community, social and cultural facilities in appropriate locations, particularly as part of mixed-use developments, subject to assessment of the scale, character, location and impact of the proposal on existing facilities and neighbouring uses.

New developments that result in additional need for community facilities would be required to contribute towards enhancing existing facilities or provide / contribute towards new facilities through CIL and / or s106 obligations, as appropriate.

Noted. Core Strategy policies CS11 and CS12 set out the Council’s approach with regard to the provision of facilities and services. Consideration will be given to whether such facilities are required as part of any site allocations.

Agreed. Core Strategy Policies CS11 and CS12 outline the Council’s approach to provision of facilities in association with growth.

19

The Council should protect existing community, cultural and social facilities by resisting their loss or change of use unless replacement facilities are provided on site or within the vicinity to meet local needs, or necessary services can be delivered from other facilities without leading to, or increasing, any shortfall in provision, and it’s been demonstrated there is no demand for another similar use on site.

The Allocations DPD should contain an appendix on parking standards to include all use classes and sui generis.

‘Community facilities’ should include a description so guidelines are clear and consistent (a proposed description is suggested)

Noted. The Council has outlined its approach to the loss of such services in adopted Core Strategy policy CS13.

Agreed. The Delivery DPD will clarify the approach to parking standards in relation to the various use classes.

Noted. This has not been considered necessary to avoid policies being overly prescriptive.

Highways Agency The HA does not expect the Allocations DPD to raise any significant issues in relation to the Strategic Road Network in the area, so has no comments on what the DPD should contain.

Lubbesthorpe will require new road bridges over the M1 and M69 and the HA expects to be consulted on the detailed design, programming and implementation of the schemes.

The HA expects the Lubbesthorpe development to be supported by improvements to the A5460 Narborough Road link between M1 J21 and NRS roundabout.

The HA expects Baines Lane (in HA ownership) to be adopted by Leicestershire CC prior to commencing Lubbesthorpe.

Noted. The Council will continue to consult with the Highways Agency through the production of the DPD.

Noted. The M1 road bridge to Lubbesthorpe has been built, and the HA will be consulted as necessary with regards the M69 bridge.

Noted. Such road improvements will be dealt with as detailed matters as the development progresses. However, the HA now intend to do this work it is understood.

Noted. This is a detailed matter and therefore not appropriate to be addressed through the Allocations DPD.

20

Lance Wiggins, Landmark Planning

BDC needs to meet objectively assessed needs following RSS revocation. To be compliant with the Government growth agenda, perhaps housing numbers in excess of those set out in the CS can be accommodated without significant adverse impacts, particularly those areas closely related to Leicester and / or well served by public transport.

The proposed distribution in the CS may be reviewed in light of the above considerations.

The limits to development will need to be redefined to accommodate additional housing (and other) growth, and a criteria based approach should be used.

Restrictive policy designations, including Green Wedges, should be reviewed.

An approach to strategic and non-strategic allocations needs to be devised, ie, adoption of a threshold and / or a criteria based approach.

The Delivery DPD will seek to provide the housing requirements in the Core Strategy which were tested by a Planning Inspector at EiP in the context of the NPPF, and found sound. The potential significant adverse impacts of providing in excess of this have not been tested.

Disagreed. As above, the Delivery DPD will plan in accordance with the Core Strategy.

Noted. The limits to development will need to be reviewed and redefined where necessary to accommodate growth through the Delivery DPD through site allocations.

Agreed, the boundaries of all policy designations will be reviewed.

Noted. The Council has decided not to adopt a threshold for allocating sites, and a criteria base approach would not accord with the Core Strategy.

Fabian D’Costa, Leicester City Council

It is very unlikely that Leicester City Council will be able to meet the high level of need for Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation as identified in the refresh of the 2007 GTAA given the tight administrative boundary and lack of available, affordable land. This needs to be discussed across the sub-region under the Duty to Cooperate in terms of ‘where need can be met’.

Concern over future plans for the Castle Acres site next to Fosse Park, relating to the recent Everards

Noted. A Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment is currently being undertaken and will inform the position of Gypsy and Traveller need in the Delivery DPD. Further discussions will take place once the outputs of this are known.

The Delivery DPD will clarify the designations of the land around Fosse Park,

21

Brewery application. A key issue would be proposals to expand Fosse Park retailing given its attractiveness to retailers. The impact of this could be very detrimental to Leicester City Centre and Blaby Town Centre. Clarification is required.

and these comments will be considered. There are also ongoing discussions on the current planning application on this site. This application will have to be made in accordance with the current development plan, taking any material considerations into account.

Sport England Well designed and implemented policies for open space, sport and recreation are fundamental to deliver broader Government objectives.

Sport contributes to the creation of sustainable communities.

Those working in and visiting town centres will generate demand for sport and recreation activities. Facilities in or close to town centres can provide additional attractions to support the viability of centres.

The Allocations DPD should contain policies seeking to protect existing open space, sports and recreation facilities (inc. playing fields).

Policies should be based on robust and up to date evidence (anything in excess of three years old is out of date), identifying specific needs and quantitative and qualitative deficits or surpluses.

The Council’s open space, sports and recreation study (2009) needs to be up to date and robust. There will be a new methodology for preparing playing pitch strategies, and Leicestershire and Rutland sport intend to review their strategic sports

Agreed. See Core Strategy Policy CS15.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted. Core Strategy Policy CS15 does this.

The Council will update the evidence base to reflect changes in circumstances as and when necessary.

Noted. The Council will consider all relevant documents in preparing the Delivery DPD, and consider where the evidence base needs updating or expanding, and undertake the work as necessary. An Open Space

22

report. This will need consideration, and the evidence base updating.

Audit (2015) has been undertaken in terms of updating the evidence base.

Local resident The impact of the Core Strategy in terms of the development to accommodate will fall upon Glenfield, Kirby Muxloe, Lubbesthorpe and Enderby.

As over 50% of the population is over retirement age and growing why does the SUE need to be linked to an SES?

Adoption of the Core Strategy will have a devastating effect on the infrastructure in the above areas, ie roads, schools, health, recreation facilities won’t cope and air quality will worsen, leading to poor quality of life.

The Allocations DPD should prevent further development in Glenfield, Kirby Muxloe, Lubbesthorpe, Thorpe Astley, Enderby, Narborough, Huncote and Littlethorpe.

Air quality should be improved in these areas

Quality housing and environment should be provided for retired people away from congested areas

Noted. The Core Strategy pursues an urban concentration approach, directing development to PUA settlements, but other settlements are expected to accommodate growth also. The Core Strategy seeks to mitigate the impacts.

The SUE will generate a need for employment to support the new community, and it is considered most sustainable to provide this in a Strategic Employment site in close proximity to the SUE (ie, to promote sustainable travel patterns etc).

Disagree. The Core Strategy was adopted by Council following being found sound by a Planning Inspector. Infrastructure will be provided in association with growth to offset any negative impacts.

Disagree. The Delivery DPD needs to be in conformity with the Core Strategy and so accommodate housing in line with the distribution strategy within it.

Noted. The Council monitors air quality on an ongoing basis. Air quality will be a consideration when allocating sites.

Noted. The Council will provide for a range of housing in accordance with housing need, (in accordance with Policy CS8)

23

There should be high quality leisure and recreational facilities for all age groups

Green Wedges and the rural environment should be protected.

Noted. Provision of infrastructure is considered in Policy CS11, and the Council will consider any further needs when looking at the site allocations.

The Council has made a commitment through the Core Strategy to retain Green Wedges and review their boundaries.

English Heritage A comprehensive evidence base is critical, including a detailed historic environment evidence base. A review of existing evidence sources will need to be undertaken as well as some new evidence needed potentially.

Historic environment considerations need to be properly addressed in identifying potential site allocations.

A robust methodology for assessing potential site allocations is required, including identification of site designations and constraints, including heritage assets.

Cumulative impacts of a number of site allocations in one location need consideration as they could cause significant harm.

Preferred sites should include development criteria to guide future proposals (including reference to the historic environment). Design criteria for key allocations essential to respond to local character.

Allocations process should consider opportunities

Agreed. The Council will look in further detail at collecting information on the historic environment when considering the site allocations, and the development of any further policies, if necessary.

Agreed. Historic environment considerations will be an important element in assessing potential site allocations

Agreed.

Agreed.

Noted. Policy CS2 in the adopted Core Strategy addresses the design of new development, and site allocations will need to be in accordance with this. Detailed design criteria will be considered for use where the evidence indicates it is needed.

Agreed. This should be a consideration

24

for significance of heritage assets to be better revealed or enhanced.

Areas of land where development would be inappropriate (NPPF, para 157) could be identified and designated through the Allocations DPD or areas of sensitivity highlighted on maps.

A ‘local list’ of non-designated heritage assets in Blaby should be developed

Other potential designations for inclusion include green / open spaces, specific uses, eg, protected town centre uses or frontages, key views, vistas, landscapes.

Development management policies should be included to clarify how the strategic policies for the historic environment will be implemented at the local level.

The Council may wish to set out more detailed local information requirements for applications involving heritage assets (than required in para 128, NPPF)

There could be a policy or policy reference for protection of locally listed buildings.

There may be some key issues which require specific policy recognition in the Allocations DPD.

Example policy areas are included with regards to the different types of heritage assets.

Historic environment considerations should not be stand-alone as they can relate to other policy areas.

amongst all others when assessing potential site allocations.

Noted. There is no evidence at this stage to justify the identification of such areas of land.

.

Disagreed. There is no requirement for this, and no commitment to one in Core Strategy.

Noted. The Council will consider which designations should be made through the Delivery DPD using the evidence available.

Noted. There is a draft Development Management policy to deal with development in relation to designated and undesignated heritage assets.

Noted. There is currently no evidence to suggest a need for further information requirements for applications involving heritage assets.

Disagreed. The Council does not have a local list, so this would be irrelevant.

Agreed. The evidence has not indicated this to be necessary at this stage.

Noted. The draft Development Management Policy for designated and undesignated heritage assets is considered sufficient.

Agreed.

25

Mobile Operators Association (MOA)

There should be a concise and flexible telecommunications policy (with criteria that telecoms development would be assessed against) within the DPD.

A suggested policy and supporting text is provided.

Noted. A telecoms policy is not considered necessary. Planning applications can be considered against existing policies in light of the NPPF.

Noted. Not considered necessary.

Natural England Interests to be addressed through development include biodiversity, geodiversity, landscape character and quality, green infrastructure, access to countryside and other open space, protection and enhancement of soils, and environmental land management.

Development incorporating sustainable design and construction and showing adaption to and reduction in climate change is supported.

Environmental constraints to be considered when allocating sites for development include international and national nature conservation sites, inc. Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation, Ramsar sites, SSSIs and National Nature Reserves, locally and regionally designated sites for geodiversity and biodiversity, landscape character, UK BAP habitats and significant proportions of BAP or protected species, sites with significant opportunity for biodiversity gain, ancient woodland, access to green space.

Proposals should aim to avoid damage to existing biodiversity features, particularly statutory designated sites, and create opportunities to enhance biodiversity.

Noted. The Core Strategy has policies which deal with a number of these issues, and the NPPF provides a further policy context in relation to these issues. No further policies considered necessary.

Agreed. This is promoted through policies in the adopted Core Strategy, particularly policy CS21.

Agreed. These are recognised in Core Strategy Policy CS19, and have been (and will continue to be) taken into account in the various site allocation options considered.

Agreed. This is addressed in Core Strategy Policy CS19. It is considered along with all other issues when assessing the different site options.

26

Protected species information should be considered when assessing sites for development.

There should be a strategic approach to conservation, enhancement and restoration of geodiversity and opportunities to incorporate it into development promoted, and ensure appropriate weight is attached to the geodiversity interest of designated sites.

Quality of the soil resource on potential development sites should be considered, and the Local Plan process should consider their protection.

Economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land should be considered. Where development of agricultural land is unavoidable, poorer quality land should be used.

A landscape character approach should be used when allocating sites for development and set out criteria based policies for landscape character areas.

New development should build in and ensure consideration is given to the wider landscape based on landscape assessment.

Make reference to the National Character Areas – BDC falls within NCA 94 – Leicestershire Vales

Local Plan should look at GI provision and allocating

Agreed.

Noted. Policy CS19 sets out the strategic approach to conserving geo-diversity, and potential site allocations will take account of this.

Soil quality is considered in assessing the site allocation options. The proposed land contamination and pollution policy in the draft Delivery DPD considers impacts on soils and best and most versatile land.

Noted. Soil quality will be considered in assessing potential development locations.

Existing landscape character evidence has been (and will continue to be) used in the assessment of site options. Criteria based policies are unnecessary, CS18 suffices.

Noted. Generally, Policies CS2 and18 consider development design and landscape character. Site specific landscape assessment will be undertaken, where necessary.

Noted. This isn’t necessary given the local landscape character evidence available.

Noted. Green Infrastructure specified in

27

sites. Consideration should be given to the objectives and aspirations of the Leicestershire Green Infrastructure Strategy.

The ‘standards for accessible natural green space (ANGSt) should be used to ensure new and existing residential development has access to nature.

CS14 will be allocated on a map. GI evidence will be taken account of in the selection of site allocations in the Delivery DPD.

Disagree. Local standards are set out in Core Strategy Policy CS15 and were derived locally based on the PPG17 Study.

National Farmers Union

Farm buildings, rural diversification and renewables (inc. solar, pv, wind, ground source heat pump, hydro and anaerobic digestion) should be encouraged in the Local Plan.

Being in close proximity to bus routes should not be a pre-condition to all development, as this will rule farms out.

New residential development close to farms must take account of whether noise, smells etc from the farm will cause nuisance to new householders in terms of restrictions being placed on existing businesses which would not otherwise cause nuisance.

These issues are too specific for policies in the Delivery DPD, but the Core Strategy Policy CS21 does address renewable technologies.

Access to public transport routes is a consideration when assessing sustainability credentials, amongst other considerations.

Noted. Impact on amenities is a planning consideration and will be taken into account when assessing allocation site options and when considering planning applications.

Two local residents Against the building of further housing, especially in the vicinity of Leicester Forest West due to the current pollution suffered plus further pollution from the 4,000 houses permitted and the traffic along Hinckley Road.

There should be no more green spaces taken, or at least they should be taken from around the Blaby area.

Noted. The Core Strategy Policies CS1 and CS5 set out how development will be distributed and the Delivery DPD needs to identify sites in accordance with this.

Sites will be identified in accordance with the distribution set out within the Core Strategy Policies CS1 and CS5, and this may require the release of more greenfield land (if

28

Can residents of Blaby pay reduced rates at a specific leisure centre in the City?

suitable Previously Developed Land is not available).

This is not an issue that can be addressed through the Delivery DPD.

Persimmon Homes (North Midlands)

Two sites are proposed as locations for development (and identified on a map):

Cosby Road, Countesthorpe Hinckley Road, Leicester Forest East

Noted. The Council will explore all potential development sites through the Allocations DPD, including these. However, the Cosby Road (Countesthorpe) site has been refused planning permission and dismissed on appeal, and Countesthorpe has met its minimum requirements as set out in Policy CS5.