H3 clause 1

House prices in Harborough are the highest in the county, especially in villages such as our own. This policy will help attract or retain households on lower incomes and help maintain or develop a mixed community.

CPRE Leicestershire supports this policy

Reference should be made here to the NP.

I consider the policy is not legally compliant for the following reasons.

The Planning Authority is required to determine an application in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations dictate otherwise. It is an established principle that the Planning Authority is not empowered to choose what is and is not a material consideration and should err on the side of caution. The policy effectively excludes material considerations set out in other policies.

The Policy is not consistent with the NPPF which states that sustainable development should be approved unless there are significant adverse demonstrable effects which outweight the benefit. Such effects could exclude those excluded by the policy, which may also make the development unsustainable. However, the policy cannot rely on reference to the NPPF to fill in the gaps. Recent case law has confirmed that the NPPF is guidance only whereas the Local Plan will have the force of law and the Local Plan should in any case be consistent with the NPPF.

In R v Rochdale Metropolitan BC [2000] WL 1151364, Sullivan J held that in determining whether a proposal was in accordance with the development plan, one should have regard to the plan as a whole and the "overall thrust of development plan polices". (Paragraphs 47 - 49 of the judgment ) It is not possible to do this when policies are excluded from consideration.

The policy is likely to undermine made Neighbourhood Plans.

The criteria referred to in this policy are vague and not likely to be legally enforceable.

I consider the policy to be unsound for the following reasons:

Allowing one development 'which would not normally be approved' will set a precedent for bad development, for instance by reducing or removing zones of separation, or distorting the shape of the development. The policy is likely to provide a Trojan Horse for developers. It will be impossible to predict the effects or limit the scope to the narrow policy objective.

The policy is vague - 'small' development is not defined, but reference to a 20% market rate housing suggests the developments may be quite large. The 20% is in terms of number of houses, which could be a wholly disproportionate.

It is also unclear in the wording to what extent there has to be a demand from local people, how that demand is to be assessed, how the market case is to be made etc. The policy implies that the properties may be sold or let to non-local people, which would undermine the stated justification for the policy. It is also unclear how the requirement that the properties should remain affordable (whatever that is) in perpetuity is legally enforceable, or whether the policy would still be applied if the demand for local people has been met.

Policy H1 is excluded. This is contradictory as the development should be in proportion to the scale and resources of the existing settlement which is informed by H1. There is no reason that housing approved under H3 should not contribute to the allocations in H1.

The aim of giving housing preference to local people is laudable, but there is a far more rational and effective way to achieve this - giving priority to local people generally in the allocation of affordable housing via the Council's via existing mechanisms.

Needs a definition of 'small'.

Support all the criteria in this policy.

Thurnby and Bushby Parish Council supports as sound.