Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Policy SS1 of the draft Local Plan identifies a target to deliver 12,800 homes over the plan period or 640 per annum. This responds to the objectively assessed need for 532 homes per annum identified in the Leicester and Leicestershire HEDNA, January 2017 with an allowance for 25 homes per annum to address the needs of employees at Magna Park and a contingency of 15% (or 83 homes per annum).

It is therefore necessary to consider each of these three elements to reach a conclusion on the housing requirement. The overall approach of the HEDNA broadly reflects the approach advocated in the NPPG. However, a number of the specific assumptions would either benefit from clarification or are not supported as described below:
1) Table 1 identifies that the population growth of the HMA was consistently under-estimated during the intercensal years, owing to unattributable population change (UPC). This is broadly recognized as being attributable to two factors, namely a potential misenumeration in one or other of the Census's (with either the 2001 Census under-estimating the actual population or the 2011 Census over-estimating the actual population) or an error in the estimated migration flows during the intervening years. It is impossible to attribute the UPC to one or the other of these factors, and so a large number of consultants preparing HEDNA's (including Neil McDonald who is quoted as a reliable source within the HEDNA) assume that 50% of the UPC is attributable to each factor. Such an approach has also been supported by numerous Local Plan Inspectors (including Inspector Pratt at the Stroud Local Plan examination). If such an approach was applied in Leicestershire, then this would uplift the population growth across the HMA by circa 742 people per year. However, the current approach of the HEDNA is equivalent to assuming that 100% of the UPC is attributable to errors within one of the Census's without any justification in support of this.
2) In paragraph 2.26, a number of sensitivity tests are identified. The first relates to rebasing the projection to 2015 and the second relates to applying a longer term migration trend. It is however, unclear whether the second sensitivity test also rebases the projection to 2015, which is required in order to align with the most recent evidence as required by the NPPG (2a-017).
3) Paragraph 4.48 identifies that the HEDNA has assumed the economic growth which occurred between 2011-15 and then projected forward the economic need from 2015 onwards. This in effect assumes that the objectively assessed need was met in full over the period 2011-15, which is clearly not the case given that the Council acknowledge that they have a record of persistent under delivery (as set out in the 5 Year Housing Land Supply Position Statement 2016/17). Any shortfall which arose during this period should therefore be added to the identified objectively assessed need across the plan period.
4) In paragraph 5.15, it is identified that changes are made to the commuting rates identified by the 2011 Census. However, the HEDNA does not identify which source (if any) the data comes from to make such an adjustment. It only alludes to "published data on jobs and population growth". This cannot be relied upon without the necessary reference as it is not justified in any way. Furthermore, data on jobs and population growth does not provide the necessary information about how those people and jobs interact through commuting. The only publicly available information on commuting rates is taken from the Census and this has the added advantage of being comprehensive as all households are legally required to submit returns. It would be virtually impossible to justify any adjustment from the comprehensive and robust figures provided by the Census in the absence of a comprehensive collection of primary data such as a survey with a high response rate (i.e. a new local Census).
5) In paragraphs 5.18 to 5.32, various sources for the employment rates are considered. It is identified that the OBR rates take account of the participation rates of different cohorts. These cohort-specific participation rates are a key determinant of the likely future workforce owing to the significant variance in participation of various cohorts (for example, a 16 or 64 year old is far less likely to be in full time employment than a 45 year old). The OBR rates also estimate the impacts of specific policy factors such as the change to retirement ages. These therefore provide robust and credible rates as relied upon by the Government. However, the HEDNA dismisses these and instead relies upon Experian rates which simply assume 80% participation without any justification and without taking any account of the participation rates of different cohorts, all of which is inconsistent with the Government's analysis (prepared by the OBR). Such an assumption relies upon a fundamental change in participation rates across all cohorts. In particular this requires that older people continue to work for a far longer period, regardless of their health and their ability to undertake more manual tasks. This departure from current rates is clearly a policy-on adjustment which should not be used to inform the objectively assessed need.

The preceding analysis suggests that the objectively assessed need of 532 homes per annum, identified by the Council is not robust and that it should be increased. Indeed, the DCLG have recently published the "Planning for the right homes in the right place" consultation which suggests that the objectively assessed need for Harborough should be 540 homes per annum. Whilst this is subject to consultation and as such it should not be afforded significant weight, this provides an indication of the Government's position on the objectively assessed need.

The Council have then identified a policy-on uplift to meet the needs of the employees of Magna Park. This is to be welcomed as it ensures that the employment development will be able to operate sustainably.

The Council then include a contingency of 15%. This contingency is identified to address the unmet needs of neighbouring authorities, to ensure that the objectively assessed need is delivered, and to provide choice and flexibility to the market as set out in paragraph 5.1.10 of the draft Local Plan.

The unmet needs of neighbouring authorities is unknown at present, although a final Memorandum of Understanding is due to be published in January 2018 which will detail the distribution across the authorities. This will be necessary to demonstrate that the duty to cooperate has been met. Pegasus Group therefore reserve the right to make further representations once this is available.

However, in the interim, the Emerging Options consultation for Leicester City identifies a housing requirement which produces a shortfall of between 7,900 and 15,000 homes (or 395 to 750 per annum). These unmet needs of Leicester City are likely to be most sustainably met within the authorities which neighbour the City, namely Blaby, Oadby & Wigston, Harborough and Charnwood. If as a broad proxy it was assumed that each of these were required to meet a quarter of the unmet needs of Leicester City, this would produce an additional requirement for 99 to 188 homes per annum in each authority. This compares to the contingency of 83 homes per annum identified in the draft Local Plan, which is also required to provide flexibility and to ensure that the objectively assessed need is provided for. This alone (although based on a very crude distribution) suggests that the housing requirement proposed in the draft Local Plan will be insufficient to meet the identified objectively assessed needs (which in themselves are under-estimated) and the unmet needs of Leicester City across the HMA.

However, the proposed housing requirement is supposed to fulfil these requirements as well as provide contingency to ensure delivery and provide choice and flexibility to the market. Whilst both of these objectives are supported, it is clear from the preceding analysis that the proposed housing requirement provides absolutely no contingency (or at the very best a much reduced contingency) once the objectively assessed needs are robustly determined and an appropriate allowance for the unmet needs of Leicester City is included. The result of this is that the housing requirement of the Local Plan is unlikely to be delivered and that there is no additional choice and flexibility available to the market.

Policy SS1 sets out a settlement hierarchy, although there is no clear explanation of the difference between the various tiers. For example, the settlement profile for the Rural Centre of Fleckney identifies that it has all of the key services as well as a range of additional services and facilities, a substantial amount of employment opportunities, a surplus capacity in the Primary School and a substantial amount of developable housing land, whilst the settlement profile for the Key Centre of Broughton Astley identifies that it has a limited range of additional services, facilities, shops and employment opportunities.

The designation of Fleckney in a tier below that of Broughton Astley does not appear to accord with the evidence, and further justification will be required to articulate the difference. Indeed, based on the available evidence, it would be necessary to promote Fleckney in the settlement hierarchy.

Fleckney is the fifth largest settlement in Harborough District, behind the Sub-Regional Centre of Market Harborough, the Key Centres of Lutterworth and Broughton Astley, and the Rural Centre of The Kibworths. It is also served by all 6 key services including food stores, a GP surgery, a library, a post office, a primary school and pubs. It is one of only three proposed Rural Centres to have all of the key services.

Fleckney has one of only three sports centres across the district (with the others being at Market Harborough and Lutterworth). This piece of strategic infrastructure serves large parts of the district. This would again demonstrate that Fleckney provides services (in excess of Broughton Astley) which would justify the designation of this settlement as a Key Centre.

Fleckney also provides a range of additional services including a range of shops, pharmacies, sports pitches, a skatepark, allotments, a range of take-aways, hairdressers. garages, a village hall, churches, a youth club and a cemetery, which more than meet the needs of Fleckney and provide the opportunity to support additional growth.

Fleckney has substantial employment provision according to the draft Local Plan and has a substantial amount of developable housing land according to the settlement profile. Indeed, based on the Council's own evidence, Fleckney forms one of the most sustainable settlements within the District.

Therefore, even if the designation of Fleckney as a Rural Centre is able to be justified through additional work on the evidence base, the settlement forms the most sustainable Rural Centre. The ability of the existing infrastructure to accommodate additional growth needs to be taken into account when developing policies.

Pegasus Group support the principles established by the first part of this policy, namely that sustainable development is supported both within and adjacent to the built-up area. This is necessary to provide the necessary unallocated development requirements of the draft Local Plan in accordance with paragraph 47 of the NPPF.

The definition of other proposals needs to be clarified within the Policy so that this provides a clear framework for decision takers. The other proposals which should be capable of consideration in this Policy should be limited to those which are subject to firm commitments (allocations or planning permissions) and which have been demonstrated to be developable.

Furthermore, as set out in response to Policy H1, the target for the delivery of new homes in Fleckney is not effective, positively prepared, justified or consistent with national policy.

The scale of development appropriate for individual settlements is set out in Policy H1 and as such this criterion of Policy GD2 is unnecessary. However, the principle that the size of a settlement and the level of service provision within that settlement is material to the level of growth is supported.

As set out in response to Policy SS1, Fleckney is the fifth largest settlement in the district, it has all the key services, and a range of additional services and facilities, including a Sports Centre. It also has a substantial amount of employment land and spare capacity in the primary school. The settlement profile acknowledges that on this basis, Fleckney has the capacity to accommodate a significant amount of growth. Fleckney should therefore receive significant levels of growth.

This policy criterion is unnecessary as such schemes are permissible under Policy GD2.

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.

Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires that a five-year land supply is demonstrated against the housing requirement of the Local Plan. Policy SS1 identifies a target for 640 homes per annum, which according to the definition in paragraph 37 of the High Court Judgment of Gallagher Homes Ltd et al vs Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council [2014] EWHC 1283 (Admin) must represent the housing requirement. It is therefore necessary to assess the five-year land supply against the housing requirement of 640 rather than the objectively assessed need of 557.

The proposed approach would also fail to accept the unmet objectively assessed needs of Leicester City which Harborough District are required to address. This would mean that the objectively assessed needs across the HMA could remain undelivered and the required policy response of the NPPF would not be engaged. The proposed approach would run entirely contrary to national policy.

The site at Land off Arnesby Road is proposed for allocation in preference to a range of other sustainable sites.

A planning application for 290 dwellings was recently recommended for approval by officers on one of the alternative sites, namely the Land at Fleckney Road (Ref: 16/01355/FUL). This recommendation was informed by a full consideration of all of the relevant factors including locational sustainability, landscape character and capacity, design, highways, flooding/drainage, ecology, residential amenity and impact upon the community. The Officers Report is appended for the Inspector's consideration.

The Land at Fleckney Road has been subject to far more rigorous levels of assessment in terms of its sustainability that the proposed allocation at Land off Arnesby Road, and is supported by a wealth of technical reports. This site is therefore demonstrably sustainable and accordingly it should be allocated. A Deliverability Statement is appended which provides a summary of the opportunities provided by this site.

The Sustainability Appraisal identifies that the proposed allocation at Land off Arnesby Road contains a significant area (in excess of 10ha) of excellent and very good quality best and most versatile agricultural land; and in excess of 20ha of excellent, very good, and good to moderate best and most versatile agricultural land.

The Sustainability Appraisal therefore classes this as red which indicates that the impacts are unavoidable and that mitigation is likely to be required. No such mitigation can be provided to address the loss of this agricultural land. The allocation of this site will unavoidably and irreversibly result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land.

Paragraph 112 of the NPPF requires that where significant development is required on best and most versatile agricultural land, this should be directed towards the areas of poorer quality. In Fleckney there is no such need for significant development on best and most versatile agricultural land, as the Sustainability Appraisal identifies a number of other alternative sites which would not require significant development on this valuable asset. This includes site A/FK/HSG/13, Land at Fleckney Road which has been demonstrated to be sustainable.

The site at Land at Fleckney Road is classed as green in the Sustainability Appraisal in terms of agricultural land and also performs broadly consistently with the site at Land off Arnesby Road on all other sustainability considerations in the Sustainability Appraisal. Indeed, as set out above, the Land at Fleckney Road is demonstrably sustainable. and there is more evidence in support of this proposition than there is for Land off Arnesby Road.

In order to accord with national policy and protect the best and most versatile agricultural land, it is therefore necessary to allocate sustainable sites such as Land at Fleckney Road in preference to sites such as Land off Arnesby Road which would erode this valuable resource.

Based on the housing trajectory, the Council have delivered 2,458 completions in the period 2011-17. Over this period, there was a requirement for 3,840 homes (based on the annualised housing requirement for 640 homes). This means that there has been a shortfall of 1,382 homes over this period. When this is added to the housing requirement for the next five years this produces a figure of 4,582 homes. With the agreed buffer of 20% this produces a five-year requirement for 5,498 homes. The trajectory however suggests that only 3,797 homes will be delivered over the next five years which results in a shortfall of 1,701 deliverable homes and a five-year land supply of only 3.45 years.

Even if as proposed by the Council, the five-year land supply is assessed against the objectively assessed needs for Harborough in isolation of the unmet needs of neighbouring authorities, (contrary to paragraph 47 of the NPPF), then the requirement over the period 2011-17 would have been for 3,342 homes (based on 557 per annum). This would result in a shortfall of 884 homes to date. With the annualised objectively assessed need for the next five years this would produce a figure of 3,669 homes. Once the agreed buffer of 20% is applied this would produce a five-year requirement for 4,403 homes. The Council have identified a deliverable supply of only 3,797 homes which results in a shortfall of 606 homes and a five-year land supply of only 4.31 years.

Under any approach, it is clear that the Council are unable to demonstrate a five-year land supply and additional deliverable sites will need to be identified within the Local Plan to restore a five-year land supply as required by paragraph 47 of the NPPF.