Fleckney provides a sustainable location for significant levels of growth, owing to the following:
1) It is the fifth largest settlement in the district in terms of the number of people and the number of dwellings;
2) It is one of only 6 settlements in the district which has all 6 key services (according to the settlement profiles);
3) It has a low level of affordable housing by comparison with the other Rural Centres (according to the settlement profiles) indicating a need for new development to provide for the needs of residents;
4) It is one of only 3 settlements in the district to offer a Sports Centre. Development at Fleckney therefore offers the opportunity to limit the needs for residents to travel to access this strategic piece of infrastructure;
5) It has a wide range of additional services and facilities including sports facilities, allotments, a skatepark, pharmacies, a range of shops, a range of restaurants and takeaways, hairdressers, car repair workshops, a village hall, churches, clubs and societies, and a scout hut as identified in the settlement profile. It also has pre-school services;
6) The primary school in Fleckney has capacity in the short-term, with the potential for expansion to address longer-term needs. This compares to the other Rural Centres where there is either no capacity, limited capacity and/or no room for expansion. This again demonstrates the sustainability credentials of Fleckney compared to the other Rural Centres;
7) The average house price in Fleckney is considerably lower than that experienced in the other Rural Centres according to the settlements profiles. Development at Fleckney is therefore likely to provide housing which is more affordable and thereby provide a greater contribution to addressing the housing crisis;
8) It has an established industrial estate as well as a range of other employment opportunities as identified in the settlement profile. This compares with the Rural Centres of Billesdon which has no purpose built employment premises, Great Glen and Husbands Bosworth which have limited employment opportunities, Houghton on the Hill which has a lack of employment opportunities and Ullesthorpe which has a very limited range of employment opportunities according to the settlement profiles;
9) The settlement profile identifies that Fleckney has the capacity to accommodate a significant amount of growth; and
10) It is one of only 3 Rural Centres to have a substantial amount of developable housing land according to the settlement profile.

Despite being the fifth largest settlement in the district, Fleckney is planned to have only the 14th highest level of growth in percentage terms at only 16.2% (including completions since 2011, current commitments and the allocations identified in Policy H1). Indeed, every other Rural Centre is planned to see greater levels of growth as well as settlements in the tier below including the Selected Rural Villages of Gilmorton (17.7%), Great Bowden (44.1%), and North Kilworth (42.6%)..

Furthermore, it is the second largest of the 7 Rural Centres but is planned to receive the lowest level of growth in percentage terms. These discrepancies are not justified, the needs of Fleckney are not being positively planned for, the Policy will be ineffective in meeting those needs and in providing a sustainable distribution of growth across the district. All of which is inconsistent with national policy.

Of the few settlements which benefit from all of the key services, Fleckney is planned to the lowest level of growth in absolute (322 dwellings) and percentage terms (16.2%). The other settlements with all of the key services include Market Harborough (3,997 dwellings, 40.6% growth), Broughton Ashley (622 dwellings, 17.9% growth), Lutterworth (2,169 dwellings, 53.6% growth), Great Glen (524 dwellings, 33.6% growth) and The Kibworths (855 dwellings, 35.9% growth). As above, this discrepancy is not justified and results in the Policy not being positively prepared, effective or consistent with national policy.

Of the Rural Centres, Fleckney is planned to receive the lowest level of growth in percentage terms by a significant margin, despite the fact that it has the second lowest proportion of affordable homes available to meet the needs of the community. This would indicate that in order to be positive, effective and to provide a range and choice of housing (as required by paragraph 50 of the NPPF) Fleckney should receive a significant amount of growth.

The level of additional services and facilities is commensurate with those at Great Glen and The Kibworths, both of which are planned to receive much greater levels of growth without any justification. Again, this unjustified distribution of growth away from Fleckney means that the Policy will be ineffective in achieving the Vision of the draft Local Plan which seeks to increase the access to services for residents. It is also not positive and contrary to national policy (particularly the 11th Core Planning Principle of paragraph 17 of the NPPF).

Fleckney is the only Rural Centre with capacity in the primary school to provide for new development in the short-term and also has the opportunity for expansion in the longer-term. Despite this, Fleckney is planned to receive significantly less percentage growth than the other Rural Centres. The necessary conclusion of this approach is that the residents in the new developments elsewhere will be required to send their children a long way to schools (including to Fleckney) whilst new school sites are identified in those Rural Centres (if possible), the schools are planned, developed, and open on a phased basis. Such an approach is contrary to the 11th Core Planning Principle of paragraph 17 of the NPPF, does not reflect positive planning, and will be ineffective in achieving the Vision of the draft Local Plan which explicitly requires that residents will have increased access to services. Furthermore, there is no justification for adopting such an approach.

Fleckney which offers the greatest range of employment opportunities of any Rural Centre is planned to receive the lowest level of growth. This is again not justified anywhere in the evidence base, is not positively prepared as it will result in unnecessary commuting flows, is contrary to national policy particularly paragraph 17 of the NPPF, and it will not be effective in achieving the Vision of the draft Local Plan particularly in terms of reducing the carbon footprint.

Based on the preceding analysis it is clear that Fleckney forms one of the most sustainable settlements in the district and that it is more sustainable than the other Rural Centres in many regards. This is clearly set out within the evidence base of the draft Local Plan. Indeed, the settlement profile identifies that as a result of the opportunities and limited constraints, Fleckney has the capacity to accommodate a significant amount of growth. In this context, there is a strong argument that Fleckney should be promoted in the settlement hierarchy. However, even if Fleckney remains as a Rural Centre it should receive an appropriate level of growth which reflects its sustainability credentials.

However, Policy H1 plans to constrain the supply in Fleckney to rates significantly below that in the other less sustainable Rural Centres and in some instances to rates significantly below that being planned in some lower tier Selected Rural Villages. There is absolutely no justification presented in the evidence base or the draft Local Plan to support such an approach which is clearly at odds with all of the available evidence. This approach is not only unjustified it will result in significant adverse effects and will undermine the delivery of the Vision by promoting the need to travel for leisure and work, and failing to meet housing needs where these arise. This is also contrary to paragraphs 50 and 17 of the NPPF.