Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

The proposed Policy requires 40% affordable housing for all residential development proposals of 10 or more homes district wide. However, the supporting 2016 Viability study states that within the Lutterworth, Market Harborough and Blaby border areas, the viability threshold for affordable homes is 30%.

Table 3.7 within the Viability study supports the adopted Core Strategy Policy CS3 stating "A minimum of 40% of the total number of dwellings will be affordable within the two highest value sub-market areas of Harborough Rural South West and Harborough Rural North and Central. In the remaining three sub-market areas (i.e. Lutterworth, Market Harborough and Blaby Border Settlements), a minimum of 30% of the total number of dwellings will be affordable." The study offers no evidence to suggest a change in this current position.

The NPPF paragraph 173 states that "careful attention should be paid to viability and costs in plan-making" and that "the scale of development identified in the Plan should not be subject to such scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened". Therefore, in order for the Policy to be considered consistent with national policy it must be altered to accommodate the affordable homes' viability variations noted across the district.

Policy H4 1B requires a minimum level of specialist housing to be provided on all residential development proposals of over 100 dwellings. Within the 2016 Viability Study commissioned by Harborough Council, there has been no assessment of the effect of this provision. This is clarified at paragraph ES7 of the Executive Summary. Therefore, the Policy has not been viability tested and is inconsistent with national policy. Paragraph 173 of the NPPF, states "the scale of development in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened."

Notwithstanding the above objection even if the policy requirement could be shown to be viable it is considered that the size of specialist housing scheme being contemplated (10 units on the basis of 10% of a 100 dwelling scheme) is too small and therefore unlikely to be delivered. In our experience, most providers of specialist schemes for the elderly would only contemplate delivery of 40-50 units as a minimum in any single scheme. This would mean that the Policy should be focussing on a site threshold of 400-500 units rather than 100; assuming that the requirement remains at 10%.

Part 1b of the policy requires all new development to meet the nationally described space standards. Whilst 5.9.3 of the Plan refers to this having been viability tested Government Policy also requires demonstration and justification of the 'need' for the space standards to be applied. The Policy therefore currently conflicts with national planning policy and is unsound.

The Written Ministerial Statement dated 25th March 2015 confirms that "the optional new national technical standards should only be required through any new Local Plan policies if they address a clearly evidenced need, and where their impact on viability has been considered, in accordance with the NPPG". So if the Council wishes to adopt the nationally described space standard then the Council should only do so by applying the criteria set out in the NPPG. The NPPG sets out that:
"Where a need for internal space standards is identified, local planning authorities should provide justification for requiring internal space policies. Local Planning Authorities should take account of the following areas need, viability and timing" (ID: 56-020-20150327) :-
* Need - It is incumbent on the Council to provide a local assessment evidencing the specific case justifying the inclusion of the nationally described space standard in its Local Plan policy. If it had been the Government's intention that generic statements justified adoption of the nationally described space standards then the logical solution would have been to incorporate the standards as mandatory via the Building Regulations which the Government has not done. The nationally described space standards should only be introduced on a "need to have" rather than a "nice to have" basis. The identification of a need for the nationally described space standard must be more than simply stating that in some cases the standard has not been met it should identify the harm caused or may be caused in the future. The Council has provided no specific evidence on health and wellbeing "

Point 1c discusses the adoption of the optional higher water efficiency standards. The Housing standards review dictates that reduced water con-sumption was solely applicable to areas classed as water stressed. The Har-borough District Water Cycle Study (2015) highlights that only the eastern area of the district is under stress. Therefore, in order for the Policy to be in accordance with the NPPF paragraph 173 viability requirements, it should be deleted and made more specific to areas that it applies to. A blanket approach to water efficiency standards is not justified.

Part 2 of this Policy refers to development providing a mix of housing types, which is informed by up-to-date evidence of housing need. William Davis Ltd object to the wording of this policy as need is not the only consideration that should be taken into account when assessing any given site. The NPPF notes at paragraph 50 that in addition to future demographic trends and market trends, the size, type tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations should also reflect local demand. As it stands, therefore the Policy is inconsistent with national policy and is unsound. The demand and character of any area within a district varies greatly, which will play a major role in determining what housing mix is appropriate. This Policy should therefore be altered to enable adaptability and flexibility in response to local market demand and the character of the area.

4% of homes in residential developments of over 100 homes meeting the accessible and adaptable building standards. It is acknowledged the Policy has been established through need, as the 2017 HEDNA displays a requirement for future adaptable homes in the district and wider region. However, although paragraph 5.9.7 of the Plan refers to the requirement having been viability tested we can find no evidence of this being the case in the 2016 Viability Assessment, that appears in the Council's published evidence. Unless the Council can demonstrate otherwise, therefore the policy conflicts with national planning policy and is unsound.

We object to Part 4 of the Policy, requiring self-build/custom build on all sites of 250 dwellings plus. This Policy is not supported. Placing a specific requirement for self-build and custom housing proposals of 250 or more homes places a burden on all larger development sites and may impact upon the rate of housing delivery in the district. It shifts development from the private house building sector, where there is a guarantee of production, to an unknown area which may or may not deliver homes at the required trajectory. If these self-build plots are not developed in a timely manner or remain undeveloped then the Council will have effectively caused an unnecessary delay to delivery.

The Council should give detailed consideration to the practicalities (for example health & safety implications, working hours, length of build programme, etc.) of implementing any such policy requirements. The provision of self-build/custom build plots will often conflict with health and safety practices on major sites for instance by virtue of the fact that they are likely to be built out at weekends and evenings. They will also create uncertainty over the form and character of development in these areas of the site which may make it difficult to sell adjoining plots; ultimately, having a detrimental effect on delivery rates.

The above considerations mean that provision should be sought by negotiation rather than as a requirement for all sites as the ability to overcome such difficulties will vary depending on site conditions.

It is considered that the Council should adopt a positive approach to attaining an appropriate level of self-build homes without placing unnecessary pressure on major and medium sized house builders. The use of exception sites or specific allocation of sites for Self-build/Custom build should be considered as options that would effectively, efficiently and sustainably add to these figures (including perhaps Council owned land).

For the above reasons, the Policy is seen to be unsound and not in accordance with the NPPF tests. Due to implications for overall housing delivery the Policy is not appropriately 'justified' and is not 'positively prepared'.

Despite the proposed Policy being in line with the central Government's overall objectives for mitigating against climate change, there has been no evidence to show the Policy has been subject to the required viability tests, in accordance with paragraph 173 of the NPPF. Therefore, these can be considered unsound.

William Davis Ltd objects to the proposed location of the Cemetery. Although the supporting Harborough District Cemetery and Burial Strategy highlights a future need for a location to serve the settlements of Harborough, Lubbenham, Foxton and Great Bowden, no alternative sites appear to have been assessed in formulating the proposal in the Pre-Submission Local Plan. It is therefore considered that the proposed site is not in accordance with paragraph 182 of the NPPF as it cannot be deemed justified, by virtue of the fact that there has been no reasonable analysis of alternatives.

The above considerations are of concern to William Davis Ltd as the company has acquired an interest in land in this area, to the east of Leicester Road Market Harborough, with a view to promoting strategic residential development here in the longer term (circa 110 Ha). Should the Local Plan allocate the currently identified site as a cemetery this could prejudice the future development potential of this area as the existing roundabout, at this location on Leicester Road, is the logical point of access. It is material to note that there are very few opportunities for strategic expansion in Market Harborough in the longer term due to flood plain to the South; the railway to the South-East; the A6 bypass to the East and adopted areas of separation and sensitive landscape to the west. This area to the North of the town, therefore, may be vital for sustainable future residential development and any proposals that could negatively affect this potential cannot be considered positively prepared as required by paragraph 182 of the NPPF.

We consider, therefore that Policy G13c should be amended to provide a non-site specific enabling policy for a cemetery to serve Market Harborough and suurounding villages pending further review of alternative options.