Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

Object

Representation ID: 13890

Received: 02/05/2025

Respondent: Ashfield Land

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Proposed Submission Draft (Regulation 19) Plan sets out a vision for the Local Plan that covers a range of points.

Whilst there is no in principle objection to this Vision, it does not refer to how it has been derived, for example, reference to the District’s issues and challenges. That said, it does largely reflect the SA ‘Sustainability Framework’ objectives set out in the SA itself (Doc SNLP4).

NPPF paragraph 33 identifies that local plans should be informed throughout their preparation by an SA which meets the relevant legal requirements, and which should
demonstrate how the Plan has addressed relevant economic, social, and environmental objectives. The purpose of the SA is to assess the sustainable development implications of the proposals presented in the Proposed Submission Draft Local Plan, where the SA outputs should have informed the Council’s Vision, Objectives, Spatial Strategy and policies.

The SA has utilised a Framework to evaluate how the different reasonable alternatives for growth and the policies of the emerging Plan perform against the 14 SA objectives, identified in Chapter 3 of the SA. These are:
• 1 – Minimise greenhouse gas emissions and develop a managed response to the effects of climate change
• 2 – Protect, enhance and manage biodiversity and geodiversity
• 3 – Support efficient use of resources, including soils
• 4 - To conserve and enhance the historic environment including the setting of heritage features
• 5 – Protect and improve air quality
• 6 – Safeguard and improve health, safety and wellbeing
• 7 – Achieve social inclusion and equality for all
• 8 – Provide access to services, facilities and education
• 9 – Provide affordable, sustainable, good-quality housing for all
• 10 – Support the sustainable growth of the economy and provide employment
opportunities
• 11 – Reduce waste generation and increase levels of reuse and recycling
• 12 – Manage and reduce flood risk from all sources and protect the quality and
quantity of water resources
• 13 – Promote sustainable transport use and active travel
• 14 – To conserve and enhance the character and distinctiveness of the landscape

However, whilst the Vision refers to the SA objectives, it is not well defined.

The Plan’s Vision should inform its proposed objectives: it is the Plan's objectives, and the policies derived from those objectives that will collectively guide development in Harborough District. Crucially, this vision should include reference to sustainable economic growth and creating the conditions to allow businesses to invest and expand over the plan period. This will ensure consistency with Paragraph 86(a) of the NPPF, which states that plans should set out a clear economic vision and strategy. It should also provide a commitment to meet the needs for employment land, which will be critical to achieve growth. The inclusion of this within the Local Plan’s vision will directly align with Paragraphs 85 and 86 of the NPPF. This
will ensure that the vision is consistent with national policy in this regard, which is required in order for the plan to be found sound at examination.

Including such detail will accord with the Council’s Corporate Plan which sets out an aim for the district to “deliver a prosperous local economy”, encouraging further economic growth in the district. Corporate Objective 19 refers to supporting enterprise, whilst Corporate Objective 23 of the Plan encourages the generation of a variety of opportunities for employment in the district, to help create prosperity. These aspirations align with Section 6 of the NPPF which refers to building a strong and completive economy.

Support

Representation ID: 13893

Received: 02/05/2025

Respondent: Ashfield Land

Agent: Pegasus Group

The proposed Local Plan objectives are supported in principle by Ashfield Land. Objective 2, which refers to “Creating jobs and diversifying the economy” (bullet point two) has been amended from the Issues and Options consultation which referred to attracting inward investment as well.

To be found sound, sufficient employment land needs to be identified in order to provide the floorspace and create the jobs required for there to be economic growth within the Borough, to achieve the ambitions in both the Corporate Plan and national policy. This matter is discussed in more detail within the remainder of these representations but the objective here, and indeed the Vision, should refer to the wider aspirations of the Strategic Growth Plan: Leicester and Leicestershire 2050 Vision, which refers to the aspirations and collaborative
growth agenda of the relevant partners across Leicestershire.

Support

Representation ID: 13894

Received: 02/05/2025

Respondent: Ashfield Land

Agent: Pegasus Group

Ashfield Land support Harborough District Council’s approach to cross boundary matters and the duty to co-operate.

The submitted Duty to Cooperate statement (Doc S-NLP2) identifies (page 41) that planning for growth in the logistics sector (Use Class B8 for storage) is a strategic cross boundary matter, particularly for development within the ‘golden triangle’ identified in the Warehousing and Logistics in Leicester and Leicestershire: Managing Growth and Change report. It also identifies that the identified need within Leicestershire for 718,875sqm of rail served and 301,293sqm of non-rail served logistics sites up to 2041. It is noted that this is to be apportioned across the Leicestershire Authorities.

In principle this is supported, but there is no indication as to how that need will be apportioned, and the Duty to Cooperate instead refers to a Leicester and Leicestershire wide strategic B8 study, which “may impact upon the approach taken within the draft HDC Local Plan.”

The apportionment of need and how it impacts the Harborough Local Plan must be understood and fully addressed in order for the Plan to be found sound. In addition, the refusal of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project at the Hinckley National Rail Freight
Interchange and its impact on the need for rail freight floorspace must also be understood and addressed in order for the Plan to be found sound or it will not be fully justified or effective.

Object

Representation ID: 13898

Received: 02/05/2025

Respondent: Ashfield Land

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The draft policy seeks to encourage job creation within Harborough and to deliver 60 hectares of employment land across the Plan period between 2020 and 2041.

This includes for a minimum of 16.4 hectares for Business Uses (Office and Light Industry (E9g)(i)-(iii), general Industry (B2) and non-strategic Storage and Distribution (B8) in units of less than 9,000sqm, to be delivered in locations identified in Policy SA01.

The policy also seeks to provide for 340,000sqm of Strategic Distribution operations (B8) in units of more than 9,000sqm. Specifically, the policy and site allocations provide for this development to be delivered at Magna Park.

The employment development that the Council is planning for in the Proposed Submission Plan is not sound. As set out in the proceeding submissions, there is a lack of flexibility in the Policy to deliver alternatives, not enough certainty on identified sites and an incomplete evidence base about the apportionment of regional need. The matters are not justified, meaning they will not be effective with reference to the paragraph 36 tests of the NPPF.

Leicester and Leicestershire Evidence
The Leicester & Leicestershire Housing & Economic Needs Assessment (HENA) was produced by Iceni in April 2022 and updated two months later, in June 2022. This identifies, in Table 13.2 that 194,000 square metres of industrial and distribution floorspace (48.5 hectares) are required over the plan period to 2041. However, this is only the requirement for ‘local’ employment floorspace (i.e. what the draft Plan refers to as units under 9,000sqm).
There is also a need, as referred below in these representations for ‘strategic’ Use Class B8 floorspace.

The 2021 (amended 2022, Doc EMP-NLP1) Warehousing and Logistics in Leicester and Leicestershire: Managing Growth and Change report recommended that the ‘authorities’ covered by the report plan for around 2.5 million sqm of B8 floorspace to 2041.

It identified a shortfall of 768,000sqm (307ha) at rail served sites which should be planned for (although it was noted that the Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange (NRFI) would take up an amount of that if approved). A 392,000sqm (112ha) shortfall was also identified at non-rail served sites.

The report identifies at paragraph 17.2 that the attractiveness of the Golden Triangle for logistics employment in Harborough and wider Leicestershire is unlikely to diminish, suggesting that the demand for this land and growth of the sector will continue to increase in the longer term.

Whilst the Council have not sought to name the HENA in their evidence base it is an important part of the data and evidence base that informs the understanding of the amount of employment land required to be delivered in Harborough by the Local Plan.

Harborough Evidence
The Council’s Doc EMP-NLP2, Harborough Local Housing and Employment Land Evidence (February 2025) identifies that B8 uses for storage and distribution and wholesale and retail trade make up 31% of Harborough’s job opportunities. The District’s Central UK location is
attributed to the popularity of such economic activity and investment.

This document does take reference from the June 2022 Iceni HENA report, reiterating the local (excluding strategic B8) industrial needs set out in that report. It goes on to update that figure, referring to a need (excluding strategic B8 uses) for 50.6ha of employment land requirements for the Plan period (Table 10.6). Paragraph 10.36 of the same report concludes that 60ha of (local, not strategic B8) employment land should be planned for across the Plan
period 2020-2041. The 60ha set out in Policy DS02 accords with this figure.

Of the identified need, the same report identifies at Table 12.2 that the supply position for local employment land delivery (not strategic B8) is 25.2ha. Table 12.3 identifies that in quantitative terms, at 31 March 2023 there is a residual need to plan for 11.1ha of additional non-strategic Use Class B8 units (<9,000sqm). Whilst overall there would be a modest employment land oversupply (across all uses) of 5.9ha of land, this is dependent on a number
of unconsented land areas being consented/allocated. It is noted that the Council are planning for this need in Policy DS02 for local supply employment sites.

Doc EMP-NLP3 Strategic B8 Needs Sensitivity Report (December 2024) was undertaken to provide an updated assessment of the need for strategic (units of >9,000sqm) additional Use Class B8 development across Leicester and Leicestershire, with specific regard to the proportion of this need that should be met in Harborough. It is noted that the Report identifies that this is an ‘interim basis’ and additional updated joint work across Leicester and
Leicestershire will be undertaken and that that work will not be predetermined by the findings of the Dec 2024 Report.

The Report notes that there is ongoing and continued growth and demand for B8 units across Leicester and Leicestershire, concluding at para 5.38 that there is a residual need for strategic B8 development of 537ha to 2041 (should the Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange (NRFI) have been approved this would reduce to 277ha, but the NRFI was refused in March 2025).

Harborough has historically satisfied 25.5.% of the area’s total absorption. Applying that to the residual need identified means Harborough should be planning for 137ha of additional strategic B8 space.

The Report also identifies that Harborough is within the most suitable location for the delivery of B8 development with reference to its location on the Strategic Road Network (SRN) and Main Road Network (MRN) within Leicester and Leicestershire. The most appropriate ‘Areas
of Opportunity’ cover the area where the A5 links to the M1, and also to the M6 further south. These are areas that should be prioritised as locations for strategic B8 development, where development can be delivered within a 5 mile drive of the M1, junction 20, a key requisite.

Paras 6.25-6.29 refer to the residual need for strategic B8 development within Harborough, assuming that the NRFI is permitted. It was refused. The report notes that if the NRFI is refused there will be a residual rail need, which could be met at ‘satellite’ road-based sites with good access to a Rail Freight Interchange (RFI). This would include sites along the A5, which have good accessibility to the rail freight interchange at Birch Coppice and it would be reasonable for the Harborough Local Plan to identify needs to support this requirement.

The report concludes that it would be appropriate for Harborough to plan for between 100 –140ha of land for strategic B8 development. This could be altered once the updated Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic B8 Need and Apportionment exercise is complete and agreed via a Statement of Common Ground. Draft Policy DS02 proposes 2 sites, both at Magna Park, to meet this requirement, across 2 sites of 15.8ha and 122ha.

The amount of employment land proposed in the Proposed Submission version of the Plan does therefore, appear to accord with the relevant evidence base, at this time.

But the impacts of the refused NRFI scheme are not fully understood, the evidence base and particularly the B8 Needs Sensitivity Report are intended as an ‘interim’ position. The requirements should be fully understood, and an agreement reached between the Leicester and Leicestershire authorities on the apportionment of the additional need. The constrained nature of some authorities such as Oadby and Wigston and Leicester City itself, and locational considerations, with access along the A5 to other RFI facilities mean Harborough should deliver some of the additional need.

Delivery
The Plan figures are predicated on a number of sites that it is ‘assumed’ will be allocated or consented when calculating supply, reducing the overall residual figure. If any of those sites do not come forward the Plan will face an under supply of employment land.

Para 86e) of the NPPF states that policies should be “flexible enough to accommodate needs not identified in the plan and allow for new and flexible working practices and spaces to enable a rapid response to changes in economic circumstances.”

The identification of only 2 strategic B8 sites within the Plan is not considered sound, particularly as one site is 122ha in size. Draft Policy SA01 identifies that the Magna Park draft allocation at Mere Lane may impact on existing residential properties abutting the north western boundary, and that noise impacts will need to be undertaken to assess potential impacts, stating that unacceptable impact must be appropriately mitigated, including on the
amenity of existing residents close to the site and in Ullesthorpe. It also notes that lighting impacts and air quality assessment work will also be required.

Magna Park consists of a large amount of strategic warehousing, and it is possible that there is scope to extend it further to provide additional units. However, Ashfield Land contend that the focus should not solely be on Magna Park. Instead, the focus should be within the wider Areas of Opportunity as identified in the Warehousing and Logistics April 2021 (amended
March 2022) report. Area of Opportunity 6 covers areas of Harborough District. The report makes clear, in paragraph 11.11, that new land should be allocated within Areas of Opportunity, particularly where there is an undersupply in strategic sites. This suggests that other locations beyond those which are established like Magna Park can be brought forward.

Paragraph 11.17 goes on to list the criteria which should be considered when deciding whether to allocate a new site for strategic warehousing. This includes good connections to the highway network; appropriate location in relation to markets the warehouse will serve; large
and flexible configuration; served from an electricity supply grid with capacity to change battery-electric freight vehicles; accessibility to labour, able to be served by sustainable transport, and close to areas of employment need; and whether there are incompatible landuses. It is noted that greenfield sites can be allocated for warehousing in the Areas of Opportunity providing that this criterion is met. Therefore, warehousing does not have to be restricted to Magna Park and smaller sites should also be allocated to ensure that warehousing can be provided in the immediate term, so that the shortfall and need identified in the Warehousing and Logistics can begin to be met.

The Mere Lane site in particular, is a large draft allocation. Large sites can take significant time to come forward not least because of the infrastructure required to support them. Allocating one main site to deliver strategic B8 need also conflicts with Para 87b) of the NPPF which advocates for the delivery of storage and distribution operations “at a variety of scales and in suitably accessible locations”.

In addition, dependent on phasing matters and provision of infrastructure to link to the rest of Magna Park, the site may not be able to come forward quickly enough to meet identified demand and this may be a barrier to investment and job creation in turn, contrary to NPPF para 86d.

In addition, the inclusion of a range of sites is supported by Paragraph 87, which sets out a clear expectation for policies to recognise and address the specific locational requirements of different sectors, including for industry, storage and distribution at a variety of scales.

This raises a number of questions over the soundness of the proposed allocation of land to meet all strategic B8 requirements at Magna Park. If impacts cannot be mitigated, particularly when considered on a cumulative basis alongside existing development, the land will not be
suitable for employment development. Mitigation may reduce the potential allocation in terms of size and developable area. Unless such matters are fully evidenced the Proposed allocation cannot be found sound.

On that basis, the Plan should identify additional sites to cater for B8 development, to address the shortcomings of the Plan as drafted:
• No consideration of how the Plan will meet identified ‘local’ need if allocated/consented sites are not delivered
• Unclear picture of the impact of the Hinckley NRFI refusal on the requirement for strategic B8 delivery in Harborough and lack of agreement between Leicester and the Leicestershire authorities
• Lack of flexibility or alternatives should a large site not deliver on infrastructure or services, or be delayed in delivery, contrary to NPPF requirements and leading to
potential lack of investment.

As drafted Policy DS02 is unsound as it is not fully justified, and will not be effective as it is not consistent with national policy.

Support

Representation ID: 13900

Received: 02/05/2025

Respondent: Ashfield Land

Agent: Pegasus Group

This policy is supported in principle as infrastructure is key to delivering a successful development.

Ashfield Land, however, make specific comments on the A5 infrastructure, and how development of their land interests may provide some improvement to the efficiency of existing infrastructure, which would be a public benefit. These matters are discussed further in Section 5 below.

Support

Representation ID: 13901

Received: 02/05/2025

Respondent: Ashfield Land

Agent: Pegasus Group

The draft policy sets out a number of circumstances in which development will be permitted for commercial/non-residential uses in the countryside.

There is no objection to this policy in principle, however what it does not do is set out how proposals for other uses will be considered. The policy as drafted is therefore not sound as it will not be effective. It should include consideration of other uses, which may come forward to meet a specific need, or meet a locational requirement, and which may therefore be acceptable.

Support

Representation ID: 13904

Received: 02/05/2025

Respondent: Ashfield Land

Agent: Pegasus Group

Ashfield Land is promoting land south of Gibbet Lane (see Site Location Plan at Appendix 1) for future employment uses. Totalling 16.52ha, the south western part of the Site, adjacent to the A5, falls within Rugby Borough Council’s administrative area, whereas the majority of the site is in Harborough District.

The Site is bound by the A5 to the south and west, and Gibbet Lane to the north. It adjoins land associated with the BMI Redland Shawell Plant, and beyond this is the Shawell Sand and Gravel Quarry, operated by Tarmac.

The Applicant has considered potential site constraints and is undertaking detailed technical work on a number of matters to demonstrate its suitability and deliverability.

Land south of Gibbet Lane is exceptionally well located and can be brought forward immediately to deliver an employment development. This can contribute towards meeting a need in the immediate term which is identified within the evidence base reviewed as part of this consultation. Appendix 4 contains a Site Deliverability Statement which provides additional information on the Site and its potential development, including technical considerations.