Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan

Support

Representation ID: 1279

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Knightwood Developments Ltd

Agent: Boyer Planning

We encourage the Council to extend the plan period by at least another two years to a time horizon of 2043 which will allow for any further delays in plan making whilst still ensuring that the minimum time period can be achieved. Extending the plan period, also allows further years of development and growth to take place and therefore provides a greater buffer in terms of housing numbers (potentially an additional 1,400 units when using the housing target in the plan) thus giving the local communities greater choice and flexibility for housing and employment options.

Support

Representation ID: 1281

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Knightwood Developments Ltd

Agent: Boyer Planning

We are supportive of the overall Vision in increasing the importance of tackling climate change as well as creating sustainable, diverse, and safe communities across the district. To strengthen the Vision to further ensure it is considered as sound, as discussed, the Plan period should be increased, and the Vision should be amended accordingly to account for the additional years.

Support

Representation ID: 1282

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Knightwood Developments Ltd

Agent: Boyer Planning

We consider that Objective 9 should be amended to take into the consideration in the extension of the Plan period, and thus the increased need for housing across the district.

However, we are pleased to see that the Council have provided an approach and set Objectives which are largely pro-growth whilst requiring the provision of diverse and sustainable communities, that are well-designed to create safe communities which are energy efficient, assisting in combating climate change.

Support

Representation ID: 1283

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Knightwood Developments Ltd

Agent: Boyer Planning

Although we are broadly supportive of the approach set out in Policy SD1, we would suggest that any further revisions to the policy provide greater clarity as to the expectations of how development proposals are to meet criteria a - m within the policy. At the moment, it is unclear as to whether each of these 13 requirements has to be met and the relationship between them and a future iteration of the policy should better reflect this to ensure the policy is effective and justified and therefore capable of being found “sound”.

Support

Representation ID: 1284

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Knightwood Developments Ltd

Agent: Boyer Planning

The Council is taking a positive and ambitious approach to addressing climate change and has put this topic central to their actions as a local planning authority but has missed the opportunity to seek meaningful and collaborative public engagement by not including any draft policies within the Regulation 18 document. The development industry benefits from experience of current developments and up to date technologies and solutions to reduce the impact of climate change and are therefore well placed to engage positively and constructively with the Council on this important policy area.

Support

Representation ID: 1285

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Knightwood Developments Ltd

Agent: Boyer Planning

Concerned that the policy simply repeats legislation and therefore is not required.

Reference is made to development proposals being in line with other documents that are prepared outside of the Local Plan process which is a concern and needs to be addressed more accurately within the Regulation 19 document. We are also concerned that the Local Nature Recovery Strategy is embedded into the policy wording even though this is not yet completed and question whether this would be an effective policy when considered against the test of soundness in the NPPF.

Whilst the Council seek on-site net gain where possible, and that the policy has flexibility to allow for off-site measures to be considered in specific circumstances, this position is not reflective of legislation which allows for developers to either provide BNG on-site or offset off-site. As above we question whether this policy is necessary and consider the Council should instead follow national legislation.

Support

Representation ID: 1286

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Knightwood Developments Ltd

Agent: Boyer Planning

Over the plan period the requirements, standards and targets are likely to change as best practice and modern technologies change and evolve and bring about greater efficiencies and outcomes for both the residents of new residential dwellings, the local community and the development industry. As such we are concerned that Policy SB1 as currently written will not be effective over the plan period and greater focus should be given to development proposals needing to meet the mandatory building regulations and where possible exceeding these standards.

As the Council is aware, the building regulations are constantly being updated and revised to reflect more standards and legislation covering all aspects such as energy consumption, water use and requirements such as EV charging. Therefore Policy SB1 is at risk of becoming redundant in the short term as building regulations will require greater standards than those outlined in the emerging policy

Support

Representation ID: 1287

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Knightwood Developments Ltd

Agent: Boyer Planning

Future development on this site will be able to connect in a positive and meaningful manner with the existing settlement of Corby Glen and improvements to these connections will ensure integrated communities to aid the delivery of sustainable development in the village.

This site identified in Corby Glen is capable of delivering sustainable development and Knightwood Developments Ltd are committed to bringing this site forward in a timely manner to assist in meeting the District’s housing requirement. The emerging allocation provides confidence that Corby Glen is suitable for additional growth over the plan period.

Within these representations and Vision Document (Appendix 1), we have demonstrated that Corby Glen is a sustainable location and the site, in our view, scores higher than the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal has concluded, which further demonstrates the suitability of the site in being allocated for residential development.

Land north of Bourne Road, Corby Glen is under ownership of one landowner and together working with the Council, can deliver both market and affordable housing early in the plan period. The inclusion of the policy and proposed site allocation is welcomed and is considered to be sound.

Support

Representation ID: 1289

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Knightwood Developments Ltd

Agent: Boyer Planning

The summary provided on page 235 of the Regulation 18 document details that “An Infrastructure Delivery Plan, including an Infrastructure Delivery Schedule, is being prepared and will inform the policy once finalised.” We are concerned that the details of these important evidence base documents are not provided at this stage of the plan making process to allow for engagement and representations to be made on approach, requirements and timescales envisaged.

Paragraph 13.16 of the Regulation 18 document confirms that the Council will continue to seek developer contributions through Section 106 and may consider the introduction of a Community Infrastructure Levy or a replacement tariff following the Governments national review. Although we broadly support this approach, the Local Plan needs to provide an indication as to the level of Section 106 that may be requested for different types of development in different parts of the plan area. Without this clarification, the Council’s Viability Appraisal is flawed because assumptions used in relation to Section 106 may not be accurate and therefore could be under or over stating requirements that need to meet the tests for planning obligations.

Support

Representation ID: 1290

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Knightwood Developments Ltd

Agent: Boyer Planning

Policy ID1: Infrastructure for Growth outlines the Council expectations for ensuring that the necessary infrastructure provision is provided at the appropriate time and in a suitable location. It is important that the policy and supporting text recognise that as part of development opportunities the provision of infrastructure is not solely within the “gift” of the developer/applicant. In most instances, the Section 106 obligation can provide the land and/or funds to aid the provision of infrastructure but often the service provider (such as education, highways etc) are responsible for the delivery of the infrastructure. As a result we suggest the policy wording should be updated to highlight those other bodies involved with bringing forward infrastructure.