H1 clause 4 Fleckney

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.

Whilst the Parish Council is not opposed to the provision of a minimum of 295 new homes over the plan period to 2031 and the specific allocation of 130 homes on the site off Arnesby Road it nevertheless wishes to record that Fleckney Parish has been designated as a Neighbourhood Plan Area and that work has begun on the preparation of the Fleckney Neighbourhood Plan. The Neighbourhood Plan will allocate sites for housing development following the rigorous appraisal of individual sites against clearly defined criteria.

The Parish Council wish to work constructively with the District Council to ensure that the allocation of development sites is made through the neighbourhood planning process rather than the Local Plan.

It is noted that at paragraph 5.1.17 of the Plan the figures expressed are residual ones (i.e. not included completions and commitments) and taking this into account, the target of 295 dwellings for Fleckney is supported given the good level of services and facilities that exist in the village. My clients site at High Street has the potential to yield c60 dwellings (together with retail floorspace on the site frontage within the Local Centre). It is well located and could provide an excellent range of dwelling sizes and tenures.

Policy H1 (as drafted) is considered unsound.

The Government has committed itself to boosting the supply of housing. NPPF/47 sets out this as an express policy requirement for all LPAs. The paragraph is designed to increase the delivery of new homes. Reflecting the requirement of NPPF/47, Policies SS1 and H1 (as drafted) are not considered to be positively prepared or consistent with national policy as they fail to allocate sufficient residential sites to ensure that the District's full objectively assessed housing need is delivered over the plan period. As an example of this deficiency, currently 6% of the District's residual housing requirement is proposed to be delivered on non-allocated sites, or sites to be allocated in Neighbourhood Plans. In the case of Fleckney over half (56%) of the settlement's minimum housing requirement is to be delivered on sites allocated in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan.

Relying on proposals on non-allocated sites and allocations in yet adopted to be Neighbourhood Plans to deliver a significant proportion of the District's housing requirement, provides insufficient guarantees that the District's identified housing need will be met. Evidence shows that many Neighbourhood Plans ignore suitable housing allocations in favour of less development. Some Neighbourhood Plans seek to deliver fewer houses than required by the Local Plan, or suppress development by making very minor or minimal allocations. In this regard, policies SS1 and H1 as drafted are not considered to be effective.

Policies SS1 and H1 as drafted are not considered to be justified as they do not represent the most appropriate strategy when considered against the alternative of allocating sufficient sites to meet all of Fleckney's minimum requirement. This is particularly relevant when sites suitable for residential allocation are clearly identified; as is the case in Fleckney - see land south of Kilby Road as promoted by Catesby Estates.

I write on behalf of Bidwells' client, the landowners for a site on land off Longgrey, Fleckney. The eastern part of the site (2.1ha) has previously been promoted under the emerging Local Plan (SHLAA reference: A/FK/HSG/10). I enclose with this response a Site Location Plan (reference: A.50,691) of the land at Longgrey, Fleckney. I also enclose with this representation a completed response form. We welcome this opportunity to comment on the Draft Submission of the Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031 (the Local Plan).
We consider the Local Plan as drafted is not sound under the 'test of soundness' in the NPPF. The plan has not been positively prepared, it is not justified or effective and it is not consistent with the NPPF. Paragraph 157 of the NPPF requires Local Plans to allocate sites to promote development, bringing forward new land where necessary, and provide detail on form, scale access and quantum where appropriate.
The Local Plan as drafted does not allocate sites sufficiently in locations such as Fleckney and hence it does not comply with the NPPF. Where relevant suggestions for changes to the plan to address the concerns in respect of soundness are
identified in these representations.
Part A: Strategy and General Policies
3. Sustainable Settlements
Policy SS1 The Spatial Strategy
Part 1 of Policy SS1 seeks to direct growth to the most appropriate locations according to the settlement hierarchy. Part of the Leicester Principal Urban Area (PUA) is identified under limb 'a' and the Sub-regional Centre of Market Harborough is identified under limb 'b'. Fleckney is identified within the fourth tier (part 1, limb 'd' of Policy SS1) of the settlement hierarchy as a Rural Centre along with Billesdon, Great Glen, Houghton on the Hill, Husbands Bosworth, The Kibworths and Ullesthorpe. Part 2, limb 'a' of Policy SS1 identifies a housing provision for a minimum of 12,800 dwellings (Use Class C3) during the period 2011-2031. This includes provision for "about 790 dwellings on non-allocated sites or sites to be allocated in neighbourhood plans for Rural Centres and Selected Rural Villages" under limb sub-limb 'v' of limb 'a'. Part 7 of Policy SS1 states that Fleckney (along with other Rural Centres) are to operate as Rural Centres providing housing, business, retail, leisure and community facilities to serve their needs and those of surrounding areas.
Paragraph 17 of the NPPF identifies one of the core planning principles is "to take account of the different roles and character of different areas...recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it." Furthermore, guidance contained within the NPPG highlights that all settlements can play a role in delivering sustainable development so blanket policies restricting housing development in some settlement and preventing other settlements from expanding should be avoided. We consider that the distribution of housing identified under Policy SS1 should be well balanced to meet both the housing needs of urban and rural communities.
We are supportive of the allocation of housing for Rural Centres. We consider that Fleckney represents a sustainable village with good access to local amenities and services. The settlement is ideally placed to deliver some level of housing growth for the District in order to meet local housing need and support village amenities and services. It is noted that Policy H1 identifies provision of a minimum of 295 dwellings at Fleckney with further consideration below.
Object: Change Required: Allocate housing towards sustainable locations in accordance with the settlement hierarchy and ensure a balanced distribution of housing to meet the need of urban and rural communities.
4. General Development Policies
GD1: Achieving Sustainable Development
A positive approach to development within the District is welcomed. It is also welcomed that applications will be approved without delay where possible.
Support: No changes required
GD2: Settlement Development
The principle of development on sites within or adjoining the existing or committed built up area is welcomed. Notwithstanding this, further consideration to the implementation of this policy may be required. It would be useful to have an indicative level of development for growth or for an acceptable level of provision within a settlement. It is also suggested that provision for development which facilitates the delivery of services or facilities is considered acceptable within or adjacent to the settlement boundary. Redevelopment of previously developed land is welcomed; however, consideration of the viability implications of PDL should be considered depending on the site specifics.
Support: Change proposed
GD8: Good Design in Development
We consider that the aspiration for good design within developments as set under the policy is welcome.
Support: No change required
Part B - Key Topics
5. Housing
H1: Provision of New Housing
The District is within the Leicester and Leicestershire Housing Market Area (HMA) and Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA) of Leicestershire. The nine Leicestershire local authorities have jointly prepared the Leicester and Leicestershire Housing and Economic Development Need Assessment (HEDNA) 2017 as part of their Duty to Cooperate responsibilities. Within the HEDNA, Leicester City Council and Oadby and Wigston Borough have both declared an unmet housing needs. The HEDNA was subject to further testing via the process of the preparation of local plans. North West Leicestershire District Council (NWLDC) was the first authority to consider the HEDNA and the Inspectors report was published on the 13 October 2017. The Inspector found that the HEDNA provided a robust justification for the stated housing and employment land requirements of the NWLDC Local Plan; however, he also stated that the outstanding concern is whether NWLDC should accommodate some of the unmet needs of the City of Leicester and the Borough of Oadby and Wigston, but these needs will not be clarified until the Strategic
Growth Plan is finalised at some time in the future. In the case of NWLDC, they have confirmed that they will review their local plan once the extent of the future Strategic Growth Plan has been provided, leading to an early review.
Paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that LPAs should:
"Use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, ..."
The NPPF therefore clearly states that allowances should be made to accommodate any identified unmet housing need should it exist within the HMA. Although the Local Plan acknowledges that there is an unmet housing need from Leicester City Council and Oadby and Wigston Borough Council, the figure of 557 dwellings per annum has been used to calculate the housing requirement. This relates to the 532 dpa within the HEDNA with an additional 25dpa following the Magna Park Employment Growth Sensitivity Study (2017).
A 15% contingency in the supply of housing land has been added to the housing requirement. This contingency needs to accommodate any provision for the unmet housing need of other authorities within the HMA. The supporting text under paragraph 5.1.10 states that the contingency is not only to provide for the potential need of unmet housing need arising from other LPAs, roles also include allowances for a slower than expected delivery of the housing allocations, failure of permitted sites to deliver, changing economic circumstances and to provide flexibility and choice in the local housing market.
Although it is currently out for consultation and can therefore hold limited weight, the long awaited 'Planning for the right homes in the right places: consultation proposals' identifies both Leicester City and Oadby and Wigston Borough Councils as having a potentially large uplift on their local assessment of housing need. This could result on additional pressure for districts such as Harborough to provide for the wider area. The provision of a contingency is welcomed. However, it is suggested that a contingency of just 15% will fail to meet the targets of Policy H1 insofar as it will not meet the FOAN for the market area as well as the other objectives of the contingency including providing for potential unmet need, lack of delivery from housing allocations and permitted sites and changing economic circumstances. It is noted that HDC published their 5 Year Housing Land Supply statement (1 April 2017 to 31 March 2022) on 12 July 2017. This statement accepted that the Council's current 5-year housing land supply position to be 4.45 years. In view of the Council's current five-year housing land supply position, it is considered that additional deliverable sites for residential development will need to be brought forward through site allocations in the Local Plan.
Policy H1 identifies land for a minimum of 4,660 new homes during the plan period to 2031, in addition to the delivery of existing commitments and completions and the allowance for windfalls. Part 4 of Policy H1 states that at Fleckney, a minimum of 295 dwellings, including (only) the allocation land at Arnesby Road - about 130 dwellings in accordance with Policy F1. Paragraph 5.1.15 of the Local Plan states that "Policy H1 identifies the approximate number of homes to be provided in or adjoining each settlement in the settlement hierarchy. These homes will be provided on a range of sites, including on land specifically allocated for housing within the policy in the larger settlements." Paragraph 5.1.16 further states that "Each
allocated site has been assessed through the SHLAA and identified as either deliverable within the first 5 years of the plan period or developable later within the plan period." In addition, paragraph 5.1.17 states that "the scale of new housing to be provided in individual settlements reflects the roles of different places in the settlement hierarchy (see Policy SS1 The Spatial Strategy). These roles partly reflect the population size of the settlements and their location in respect of other settlements but also relate to the range of activities and services present and, in relation to primary schools, their ability to expand to accommodate the needs generated by new development. In selecting the scale of housing to be provided in each settlement, account has been taken of fundamental constraints on development, such as flood risk, and the supply of potential development sites in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). It also included further detailed consideration of villages where the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of this
Local Plan identified potential sensitivity, or where the SHLAA sites were considered to conflict with the criteria in Policy GD2 Settlement development. Each settlement figure is a residual figure, taking account of existing commitments and previous completions within the settlement. For this reason there are relatively few dwellings required to be found in Rural Centres, where a large number of planning applications have been recently approved." Paragraph 5.1.18 further states that "the Local Plan also makes provision for smaller housing sites. Provision of smaller sites will be made through: the delivery of existing small site commitments; 'windfall' sites and small sites identified in the SHLAA that accord with policies GD2 'Settlement Development' and GD4 'New Housing in the Countryside'; and housing allocations in neighbourhood plans."
Whilst Policy H1 identifies provision for a minimum of 295 dwellings at Fleckney, only provision for 130 dwellings at 'land at Arnesby Road' has been identified within the policy. Policy H1 it does not fully identify where provision for all of the 295 dwellings will be allocated at Fleckney. For Policy H1 to allocate this level of housing for Fleckney, we consider that both Policy H1 and the Policies Map should identify where this housing provision is to be delivered by specifying it within the policy text and identifying its location as a housing allocation in the Policies Map. HDC published their Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 2015 Update in May 2016. Appendix E 'Scored Settlement Maps' identifies the eastern part of the site (2.1ha) as SHLAA reference:A/FK/HSG/10 and is developable in the next 6 to 10 years for 35 dwellings. The remaining western part of the site is not identified in the SHLAA. It should also be noted that there is no 'made' or advanced emerging draft Neighbourhood Plan for Fleckney.
In view of the above findings, it is unclear under Policy H1 exactly how Fleckney will meet all of its provision for a minimum of 295 dwellings as identified under the policy. We consider that the SHLAA has demonstrated additional land that is deliverable and developable and additional provision for housing should be identified at Fleckney. The land off Longgrey, Fleckney is ideally suited to meet additional growth requirements for the village under a housing allocation in the Local Plan.
There are no known constraints to the proposed residential development of the site. Safe access to the site can be achieved off Longgrey and the site is located close to local amenities and services in Fleckney. It is considered that landscape enhancements will help mitigate any potential landscape and visual impact from the proposed development. An illustrative masterplan/layout plan can be provided in due course to provide details of proposed layout and design to show how residential development of the site can be delivered. In view of the above, the site represents an achievable, suitable and deliverable site to support the necessary housing growth for the District. The proposed development will contribute towards the Council's
housing requirements and expected further unmet need from Leicester City and Oadby and Wigston Borough. Residential development of the site can be delivered and achieved within the forthcoming five year period, which will contribute significantly towards the Council's five-year supply and help towards addressing their current shortfall.
Changes Required: Ensure the housing requirements meet the FOAN for the market area and other objectives of the contingency identified above including providing for potential unmet housing need from Leicester City Council and Oadby and Wigston Borough Council, lack of delivery from housing allocations and permitted sites and changing economic circumstances; identify the site off Longgrey, Fleckney as a housing allocation.
H2: Affordable Housing
The allowance of off-site affordable housing is welcomed where it is not possible to provide an on-site contribution. There is a clear need for affordable housing within the District; however, it is important that the affordable housing requirement does not restrict development within the District. Part 5 of the policy is welcomed as
there will be instances where the high level of affordable housing provision is not feasible given the market values or site-specific concerns. The latest evidence base for affordable housing is contained within the Local Plan Viability Interim Report
- Residential Options Viability, prepared by Aspinall Verdi and published April 2016. This report demonstrates that viability varies between 30% - 40%. We consider that there is no justification for the Council to apply the higher figure of 40% affordable housing provision as a blanket figure across the whole District when their latest evidence base suggests otherwise.
Policy CS3 of the adopted Core Strategy recognised the need for different areas of the District to provide lower affordable housing requirements. This helped enable developers to provide high quality developments whilst compensating for lower market values within these areas. It is recommended that a similar aspect of this policy is incorporated into Policy H2. Policy H2 needs to consider the level of
affordable housing requirements to ensure that an effective viability of the Local Plan can be undertaken as required by the NPPF. We also consider that Policy H2 should consider the Government's proposals for Starter Homes. A proposed affordable housing tenure mix of 75% affordable/social rent and 25% low cost home ownership is too prescriptive and could prevent the delivery of Starter Homes coming forward. We consider that proposed residential and associated development of the land off Longgrey, Fleckney is suitable to provide an element of affordable housing provision in order to help meet the District's affordable housing need.
Object: Recommend amendments - it is suggested that the previous affordable housing policy within the adopted Core Strategy is retained.
H5: Housing Density, Mix and Standards
The provision of high quality housing, suitable to the needs and aspirations of an area is strongly supported. Notwithstanding this, the practicalities of housing provision needs to be carefully considered to ensure that unnecessary delays in housing delivery are not experienced. It is important to remember that development
cannot only provide for existing demand, it can also address the aspirations of an area. For example, young families could be attracted to an area through the provision of family accommodation whereas the elderly would have different housing requirements. It is recommended that Policy H5 is amended to include variations to the policy where evidence is provided to support any deviation. The required housing mix density for housing developments in different locations
across the District needs to reflect the market in these locations and the local housing need. It is not necessary to require adherence to Building Regulations within a development plan policy and therefore this reference should be omitted.
We consider that proposed residential and associated development of the land off Longgrey, Fleckney is suitable to provide a mix of housing size, types and tenure in order to help meet the District's mix of market and affordable housing need.
Object: Suggested amendment proposed to accommodate deviation from the policy in exceptional circumstances; omission of reference to Building Regulations
8.Heritage and Community Assets
HC1: Built Heritage
This policy needs to be changed to more accurately reflect the heritage guidance in the NPPF. Paragraph 126 of the NPPF states that: "Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats."
The requirement to adhere to the NPPF guidance is especially relevant to developments proposals which are considered to lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of heritage assets under paragraph 134 of the NPPF.
In this situation, it is necessary to assess the public benefits of the proposed development and then depending on the outcome of this assessment to undertake a balancing exercise under paragraph 14 of the NPPF. This policy does not accurately reflect the heritage guidance in the NPPF as therefore it does not represent
a positive strategy for heritage assets. Object: Change required to reflect heritage guidance in the NPPF to ensure there is a positive strategy for heritage assets.
12. Implementation, Monitoring and Review
IMR1: Monitoring and Review of Local Plan
An early review of the Local Plan is welcomed given the uncertainty of housing numbers within the HMA and pending changes to Government guidance on calculating housing requirements and changes to the NPPF. It is necessary to provide greater clarity and certainty on the timing for a review of the Local Plan.
Support: Suggest clarity and certainty on the timing for a review of the Local Plan.
Conclusion Our client welcomes this opportunity to comment on the emerging Local Plan. As it stands the plan is not sound and hence there are a number of changes required to the plan. We would be grateful if Harborough District Council could confirm receipt of this representation and continue to keep us informed as to the subsequent stages of the Local Plan.