v. about 790 dwellings on non-allocated sites or sites to be allocated in neighbourhood plans

it is considered that the Policy is too reliant on allocations (to deliver a total of 790 dwellings) via Neighbourhood Plans. There is no certainty that Neighbourhood Plans will be forthcoming to ensure all 790 dwellings will be delivered over the Plan period and a risk that such provision is, in effect, a secondary windfall allowance. It such an eventuality, the Policy cannot be sound or positively prepared.
An alternative approach would be to allocate additional housing sites within the Local Plan to deliver the additional 790 dwellings. Any additional allocations which are subsequently identified via Neighbourhood Plans would be commensurate with the overriding objective of delivering a minimum of 12,800 dwellings and boost the overall supply of housing, as required by the NPPF.
Suitable sites have already been assessed via the SHLAA process, therefore the evidence base for making such allocation is already in place.

Policy SS1 (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.

Refer to attached document.

Key Issue 1 of the Proposed Submission Local Plan is 'The spatial strategy for distribution of housing and employment development', determining an appropriate distribution of housing and employment growth that takes account of strategic growth locations, the settlement hierarchy, and the ability to provide essential utilities and infrastructure, whilst safeguarding local heritage and sensitive landscapes.'

Appendix F of the Proposed Submission Local Plan is entitled 'The Settlement Hierarchy'. It explains at page 252 that "Settlements at the top of the hierarchy are considered to be the most suitable in terms of accessibility to services, facilities, shops, employment opportunities and public transport provision. These settlements are therefore the most capable of supporting further development whilst meeting the everyday needs of their residents and thus minimising the need to travel." General support is given to this approach to sustainable development across the district.

Draft Policy SS1 'The Spatial Strategy' for the District seeks to direct development to "the most appropriate locations in accordance with the following settlement hierarchy." The Council proposes to primarily direct development to the Leicester Principal Urban; then to Market Harborough the Sub-regional Centre'; then to the Key Centres of Lutterworth and Broughton Astley. Beyond this are the 'Rural Centre', 'Selected Rural Villages', and 'Other Villages, Rural Settlements and the Countryside.

Appendix D of the Proposed Submission Local Plan is entitled 'Spatial Portrait', page 231 identifies that at the time of the Census 2011, the district's population was mostly concentrated in the larger settlements of Market Harborough, Lutterworth and Broughton Astley (47%). It also noted at page 233 that Market Harborough and the Key Centres of Lutterworth and Broughton Astley provide the most services and facilities for the District.

Broughton Astley is classified as a Key Centre and as such identified at 'Table D.20 Key Centres' the settlement benefits from a range of retail, service, and employment and is a significant residential area. The Council's stated approach to development is that Key Centres are "Settlements capable of sustaining expansion, infill and redevelopment on a scale which reflects their good levels of services, facilities and employment." It is clear that the Council has justified Broughton Astley as a Key Centre settlement within the Settlement Hierarchy.

Policy SS1 however does not specifically direct any new development to Broughton Astley over the plan period. Reference is made at criteria I) to "about 7,915 dwellings already completed or committed, including through planning permissions, resolutions to grant permission and allocations in made neighbourhood plans".

Curiously, the Council identifies at criteria v) "about 790 dwellings on non-allocated sites or sites to be allocated in neighbourhood plans for Rural Centres and Selected Rural Villages" (emphasis added). The National Planning Policy framework identifies 'non-allocated' or 'windfall' sites as: "Sites which have not been specifically identified as available in the local plan process. They normally comprise previously-developed sites that have unexpectedly become available." It is questioned why the Council wishes to direct such development to the less sustainable settlements in the District rather than the Key Centres. This is not considered to be a positively prepared policy.

The Council's justification as set out at paragraph 5.1.18 "In order to provide choice in the housing market, provide a mix of sites and make sites available to small and medium size house builders, 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 (as defined in the NPPF glossary) and small sites identified in the SHLAA that accord with policies GD2 Settlement Development." (emphasis added). The Councils interpretation of windfall sites is at odds with the National Planning Policy Framework definition as it specifically refers to 'smaller sites'.

Further Draft Policy GD2 Settlement development states that "1. In addition to sites allocated by this Local Plan and neighbourhood plans, development within or contiguous with the existing or committed built up area of Market Harborough, Key Centres, the Leicester Principal Urban Area (PUA), Rural Centres and Selected Rural Villages will be permitted" subject to criteria including cross reference to Policy H1. Again this policy is not considered to either effective or positively prepared because it limits windfall development to less sustainable settlements.

Paragraph 4.3.4 explains in relation ton Draft Policy GD2 that "Delivering housing to meet identified need across the District is a vital element of the Local Plan and Policy H1 sets out target figures for the most sustainable settlements in line with Policy SS1. These target figures are linked to ensuring that the District's housing requirements are met and most development is directed to the most sustainable settlements in line with Policy SS1. These target figures are linked to ensuring that the District's housing requirements are met and most development is directed to the most sustainable locations in the District. Policy GD2 supports the aims of the spatial strategy by ensuring that the settlement housing targets set out in Policy H1 are followed. While the term 'significantly exceed' in criterion a should be interpreted by the decision-maker in the context of local circumstances, as a rule of thumb the target should not normally be exceeded by more than about 10%."

Policy H1 is silent about the provision of housing at Broughton Astley.