Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

Housing number needs to be revised to meet the revised LHN requirement, any outcome of further DtC discussions and consideration of affordable housing delivery.

The Plan period needs to be extended to be at least 15 years form adoption.

Policy DS01 sets out that the housing requirement over the plan period is 13,182 between 2020 and 2014. This is based on the annual requirement for Harborough of 534 dwellings per year, plus an agreed allowance of 123 dwellings per year to contribute to meeting Leicester City’s unmet need (in the period 2020 to 2026 only). There are several issues with this housing requirement:

1- Harborough District Council published the Regulation 19 document on 10th March 2025, so benefit from the transitional arrangements set out in Annex 1 of the NPPF (December 2024) which means that the Plan can proceed under the previous iteration of the NPPF (December 2023) provided that it meets at least 80% of the housing need established calculated using the Standard Method set out in the Planning Practice Guidance (December 2024).

The revised Standard Method generates a Local Housing Need for Harborough of 723 dwellings per year (this is based on the latest affordability ratio data published in April 2025). 80% of this requirement equates to 579 dwellings per annum – above the level of need that the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan plans for (534 dwellings per annum as clarified at paragraph 4.6 of the Regulation 19 document).

Whilst the allowance for Leicester’s unmet need (123 dwellings – discussed further below) takes the annual requirement for years 2020 to 2036 above 80% of the LHN, this is only on the basis of the Local Plan contributing to meeting additional needs of Leicester – this should not be factored into consideration of whether the Harborough Local Plan is meeting 80% of Harborough’s Local Housing Need.
On the basis that the Local Plan does not meet 80% of the LHN for Harborough, the Local Plan should not proceed to examination as the policies of the December 2024 NPPF need to be applied, which include paragraph 61, where the overall aim should be to meet an area’s identified need – which the emerging Local Plan does not do.

2. The NPPF (2024) establishes at paragraph 62 that the minimum number of homes needed in an area should be informed by a Local Housing Need Assessment, conducted using the Standard Method. This requirement has not changed from the NPPF (December 2023). Paragraph 69 goes on to state that the housing requirement may be higher than the identified need, sighting examples of unmet need or growth ambitions as justification for a higher figure.

We flagged in our response to the Issues and Options consultation that the HENA (2020) highlights that the affordable housing need in the area should be a consideration in setting the housing requirement. This accords with the Planning Practice Guidance (Reference ID: 2a-024-20190220) where is states ‘an increase in the total housing figures included in the plan may need to be considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable homes’.

Despite this, and the HENA identifying that there is a significant affordable need in the area, it is unclear how the potential need to plan for additional housing over and above the minimum housing need has been considered. Taylor Wimpey consider this to be an oversight and there is a need to revisit the housing requirement to see if it should be increased to facilitate the delivery of a greater level of affordable housing.

At the same time, it is considered that the HENA needs to be revisited more generally to bring it up-to-date with the latest Standard Method, which should underpin the assessment, as required by NPPF (2024) paragraph 62, noted above.

3. The emerging Local Plan sets out that the agreement between the Leicestershire authorities means that the HDC Local Plan is required to deliver 123 dwellings per annum over the period 2020 to 2036. This is based on an overall shortfall in Leicester City of 18,300 dwellings over the same period, which equates to 1,169 dwellings per year. The contribution HDC are making therefore equates to c.10.5% of the overall unmet need.

This figure is maintained in the emerging Local Plan despite a significant reduction in Leicester’s unmet need as a result of the changes to the Standard Method, which reduced the LNH for Leicester City from 2,435 to 1,157. This reduction means that there will inevitably be a reduction in the level of unmet need to be accommodated in adjoining authorities (we estimate to c.291 dwelling per year).
Despite this change being known in December 2024, the Local Plan has progressed based on the agreement of HDC to accommodate 123 dwellings per year. Whilst this approach means that the emerging Local Plan is likely to currently over allocate land to meet the revised unmet need of Leicester, until the calculation has been re-run and an appropriate apportionment of this need attributed to Harborough, it cannot be said that the emerging Local Plan is effective or that the Duty to Co-Operate is satisfied.

A simple reduction based on the same 10.5% contribution of Harborough would mean that the Local Plan should be contributing 31 dwellings per year to Leicester’s unmet need. However, this is an over-simplification of the process which, as clarified at paragraph 3.22 of the Statement of Common Ground (July 2022) is based on the functional relationship of each District/Borough with Leicester City, the balance of jobs and homes in each district/borough, and deliverability of the distribution of development.

Our position is that if the exercise is revisited, the proportion of the unmet need that Harborough should contribute is likely to increase, based on the functional relationship of Harborough with Leicester and the deliverability of development. Whilst this may still lead to a reduction in the 123 dwelling allowance for Leicester currently planned for, getting a proper understanding of this matter ahead of the HDC Local Plan progressing is key to the overall effectiveness of plan making across Leicestershire and this should have been done under the Duty to Cooperate ahead of the Regulation 19 consultation.

This is also a key factor as, depending on an Inspector’s view, it may have a direct bearing on whether the 80% requirement noted under point 1 above, has been satisfied. It is also important as the spatial strategy and the allocation of sites has been, in part, driven by the need to meet Leicester’s unmet need. If this figures changes, it has an impact on the distribution of development.

Adding to this point, it is also worth noting that the LHN of other Leicestershire authorities has also changed. This includes the neighbouring Oadby and Wigston whose LHN goes up to 382 dwellings per year from 188. This figure is well above the 240 dwelling a year provision that the authority was going to plan for including an allowance for Leicester City’s unmet need. Overall, across Leicestershire the combined LHN goes up to 6,105 (as at April 2025) from the 5,713 figure that formed the basis of the Statement of Common Ground between Authorities back in 2022. This is a further 7% increase in housing need across the Leicestershire area which will need to be catered for.

Oadby and Wigston had reached Regulation 19 stage but have taken a step back and are reassessing their strategy based on it not meeting 80% of the revised LHN, even taking into account the allowance for Leicester City’s unmet need. Based on the conclusions in the Statement of Common Ground about additional land availability, it is likely that there will be limited capacity to deliver this additional need, and they are likely to declare an unmet need.

To reiterate the point made above, these revised figures have been known since December 2024 and create a new set of issues that the Council’s should be working together to resolve through the Duty to Co-operate. Whilst the current housing requirement in the emerging Local Plan is likely to over-provide for Leicester’s unmet need (which is what the 123 additional homes are specifically identified for in the emerging Local Plan) it is actually likely to be the case that overall, the Plan does not provide sufficient additional homes to meet the overall needs of Leicestershire. This is specifically a concern given the likely unmet need arising from Oadby and Wigston which adjoins Harbough District which, if considered properly, may alter the spatial strategy and the allocation of sites to meet need close to where it arises.

4. Plan Period – the NPPF sets out that there is a requirement for a Local Plan to cover a 15-year plan period from adoption. The latest LDS sets out that adoption may not be until December 2026. Based on the housing trajectory being based on the ‘normal ‘monitoring period of 1st April to 31st March (Local Plan, Appendix 5) it is suggested that on adoption the Local Plan will not have a 15-year plan period as required. To have 15 years from adoption, the Local Plan would need to be adopted by the end of March 2026 and as the Council’s own LDS does not suggest this is possible, it is suggested that the Plan cannot be found sound unless the plan period is extended and additional housing sites identified as required.

A revsion of the distribution of growth which removes the emphasis on Market Harborough.
Reconsider the level of growth at Broughton Astley which is not justified by the evidence base.

Table 2 clarifies the total amount of development that will be directed to the different levels of the settlement hierarchy and the individual settlements over the plan period.

The table highlights that 1,450 additional homes are to be directed to the area adjoining Leicester, which is broadly in line with the level of growth we suggested at issues and options stage would be appropriate in these areas, based on the level of unmet need from Leicester City that Harborough had agreed to accommodate. However, given concerns raised in relation to the housing requirement and the influence of this on the selection of sites for allocation, we now consider that too much development may be being directed to the areas adjoining Leicester.

The table goes on to identify that a further 1,350 homes are to be directed to Market Harborough on top of existing commitments, meaning 4,317 homes are planned in the town over the plan period. This equates to nearly 30% of all of the identified supply in the District, which we consider is an unsustainable approach.

We have addressed site specifics in relation to our comments on other policies, but we consider that the allocation of a further 1,350 homes to a town which has already seen significant growth and has over 2,000 commitments will be to the detriment of the town in terms of the general impact on infrastructure, services and facilities.

The Development Strategy Paper (February 2025) identifies that the market towns would only require additional ‘proportionate’ growth under the high and medium growth scenarios, with no additional growth required at the low growth level (which effectively the option that has been followed) – yet the approach proposed in the Local Plan is closer to the ‘proportionate’ level of growth that would be directed to the market towns in a high growth scenario, which highlights the disparity in the approach taken.

The strategy effectively proportionally increases the level of development at market towns, despite these areas already being saturated by development. This is despite the fact that there are plentiful opportunities at lower levels of the settlement hierarchy where additional growth could be sustainably distributed.

The Assessment of Options set out in Appendix E of the Development Strategy Paper sets out that several of the spatial options are partially taken forward for further refinement. The narrative in the assessment suggests that this is based on a very simplistic approach of saying that large developments and development next to existing urban areas are sustainable, whilst growth at lower order settlements is less sustainable.
Whilst there is some merit in this, it oversimplifies the situation and does not give consideration to the merits of growth in particular settlements, nor does it consider the existing situation with regard to commitments or site availability. It is a very theoretical approach.

Taylor Wimpey believe that a more nuanced assessment of spatial options and strategy should have been undertaken prior to the high-level Spatial Strategy being fixed. If this had been undertaken properly, Broughton Astley, the third largest settlement in the District, would likely have been identified for additional growth over and above the 475 homes directed to the village, which is not reflective of the potential of the village to support growth given a) the limited existing commitments b) the availability of suitable land, c) the relationship to Leicester compared to other village and d) the greater level of services and facilities in the area compared to other villages.

Whilst some of this is acknowledged in the Site Selection Paper (dated January 2025) it is clear that the decision to allocate 475 homes in the village has already been established before settlements and sites are considered in more detail (see the overview section of Appendix 1 of the Site Selection Paper where it states, The New Local Plan Development Strategy identifies a growth target of 475 dwellings to 2041 for Broughton Astley (in addition to commitments of 118 dwellings as at 1st April 2023)).

It is very unclear from the evidence base when, why and how this level of development for Broughton Astley was established, which is a fundamental gap in the development of the Local Plan that needs to be explained.

Revise the strategy to plan for more sites that are deliverable in the short term.

The Housing Trajectory (at Appendix 5) clearly shows that in the 5 years post adoption, the HDC will not be able to demonstrate that a deliverable 5-year housing land supply will be in place. The five years form 25/26 are forecast to deliver 2,804 completions. Notwithstanding our comments that the housing requirement needs to increase, the requirement over the same period will be at least 3,449 (657 x 5 plus a 5% buffer). This leads to a land supply of just over 4 years.

Paragraph 9.10 sets out that the Council believe that past under or over performance will be calculated against the base date of the plan from 2020. The Council is fundamentally wrong in assuming past over performance can be used to effectively reduce future land supply requirements.

The objective of the NPPF is to significantly boost the delivery of housing (NPPF paragraph 61). Taking the approach of offsetting future requirements against past over performance goes against this.

With the amendments to the NPPF (paragraph 77 NPPF, 2023, and paragraph 78 NPPF, 2024), removing reference to dealing with past over or under supply, the only guidance is set out in the PPG. The PPG (Paragraph: 022 Reference ID: 68-031-20190722) covers off how to build past shortfall into the 5-year land supply requirement with Paragraph: 023 Reference ID: 68-032-20190722 covering past over supply vs planned housing requirements. This sets out that ‘where areas deliver more completions than required, the additional supply can be used to offset any shortfalls against requirements from previous years’.

The PPG therefore make no reference to offsetting future requirements against completions in previous years – over performance can simply be used to reduce the level of any shortfall that may have taken place before the start of the five-year period being reported on.

The only reference in the NPPF to calculating land supply is at paragraph 78 which states: ‘Local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in adopted strategic policies’. This simply requires a report against the adopted housing requirement, with no reference to past over or under performance, which is covered in the PPG.

The identified shortfall in land supply on adoption of the Local Plan could be addressed by a change in strategy with the allocation of a greater number of small/medium sized sites across the Plan area, rather than the over reliance on larger sites, with longer lead in times and greater infrastructure requirements.

A re-assessment of Taylor Wimpey's site is required to consider the site actually submitted for consideration.
A revision of the site allocations in Broughton Astley to allocate a range of smaller, more deliverable sites as opposed to one, larger strategic site.

Taylor Wimpey do not consider that the site allocations in the emerging Local Plan are either effective or justified.

As noted in relation to paragraph 9.10 and Appendix 5, it is clear that the approach of the Council to making allocations will not deliver sufficient levels of development in the years immediately post adoption of the Local Plan, meaning a five-year land supply will not be able to be demonstrated. The approach of focusing on large strategic sites, as well as larger sites in the market towns and large villages means there will be an inevitable delay in delivering the homes that the area needs and this should have been a greater consideration in the selection of sites for allocation.

Whilst there is some merit in the Council’s arguments that it is easier to plan infrastructure based on strategic allocation, this is not always the case, particularly in the villages where the quantum of development means that it is less likely that new infrastructure will be required but rather that enhancements to existing facilities, off site will need to be provided.

This is exactly the position in Broughton Astley where the Council have selected site BA1 as a single allocation for 475 dwellings, without the need for any onsite infrastructure to be provided. This is despite numerous other sites being available, that could have met the need of the area in a more-timely manner, whilst also contributing to the offsite infrastructure enhancements noted in the policy.

The Site Assessment Report (Appendix 4) does not appear to give this matter any real consideration, instead focusing on site suitability. Whilst there is passing reference to deliverability, this is in the context of site-specific matters and not delivery of the housing numbers required throughout the plan period. For this reason, Taylor Wimpey do not consider that the policy is effective.

Within the assessment, a judgement about the compatibility of each site with the Councils Sustainability objectives is provided, but there is no quantitative assessment of site suitability that would allow a direct comparison of sites to be made, as we see in other areas. This would enable more clear judgement on site suitability to be drawn, rather than conclusions such as ‘the scale of growth for Broughton Astley can be delivered on alternative more appropriate sites within the village. Site is not considered the most appropriate location to deliver the identified housing needs Broughton Astley in the emerging Local Plan. Site is not a preferred allocation’.

Conclusions like this do not make it clear how one site was selected over another and it is considered that more needs to be done to justify why certain sites have been selected over other alternatives. Without this, the plan cannot be considered to be sound.
Specifically in relation to the assessment of Taylor Wimpey’s site off Frolesworth Road (reference 8218), the Council have failed to assess the most recent site area that was put forward to the Council through the most call for sites period, instead basing the assessment on the larger parcel of land which was originally submitted for consideration.

The reason for the smaller site being put forward for consideration was to address the potential concerns with encroachment into the countryside -a key reason noted in the Site Assessment report as why the site was not preferred.

Without an assessment of the smaller parcel of land, the Council cannot say that all reasonable alternatives in the village have been properly assessed and therefore the allocations are not justified. Taylor Wimpey contend that if the small site is assessed, and matters around site deliverability are reviewed, their site should be one of several smaller, deliverable sites around Broughton Astley which would better contribute to meeting the housing need of the area in a timely manner, whilst also avoiding the urbanising affect a large 475 home development on a single site would inevitably have on the character of the village.

Review of evidence base to provide an effective and justified strategy

Provision of a clear mechanism for delivering cross boundary, strategic infrastructure improvements,

Taylor Wimpey have concerns that insufficient consideration has been given to the infrastructure requirements associated with supporting the deliverer of the proposed development strategy, particularly from a highway perspective.

The level of growth proposed around Leicester will require a significant, co-ordinated, investment in highway infrastructure. This matter is causing issues for the progression of the Charnwood Local Plan and we can foresee similar issues with regard to the Harborough Local Plan.

From a financial perspective, whilst s278 costs appear to be built into the assessment of strategic sites, it is clear from review of the Viability Assessment (January 2025) that there is some uncertain to the levels of cost identified and the infrastructure that is necessary to support development. This calls into question the effectiveness of the Plan in delivering the necessary highway improvements, as well as the other policy requirements of the plan, such as affordable housing.

Moreover, there does not appear to be any costs built into the overall assessment of the viability of residential development to allow for offsite highway improvements that will undoubtedly need to be provided to facilitate the overall growth strategy. In Charnwood, the introduction of CIL is proposed partly to address this issue, and it is suggested that a similar approach is likely to be necessary in Harborough.

Additionally, Taylor Wimpey have noted the soundness concerns which will be set out by the Local Highway Authority (LHA) (Leicester County Council) response to the consultation (as reported to Cabinet in March). Whilst not repeating the points that will be raised in the LHA response, the matters raised include the failure to provide the policy basis to address cumulative cross boundary transport matters, concern with the deliverability of strategic improvements necessary to delivery the spatial strategy and the lack of a policy approach to secure developer contributions towards transport measures, with specific reference to cross boundary impacts and the A6 corridor. These concerns align with the points we have made above that the plan as drafted will be ineffective and more work needs to be undertaken to ensure that the Plan is deliverable.

Increase overall housing allocations to deliver a greater element of the affordable housing need of the area

Policy HN01 requires 40% of homes on developments of 10 or more dwellings to be affordable. It is confirmed that this is based on maximising the level of affordable housing that is viable deliverable.

The justification for the policy sets out that an annual need for 421 affordable dwellings per year has been identified and that ‘most of our affordable housing need can be met if developments deliver 40% affordable homes’.

421 dwellings per year equates to over 80% of the total housing requirements the Council have proposed in the Local Plan. It is therefore unclear how it can be concluded that the strategy of the Council will deliver ‘most’ of the identified need for affordable housing.

Whilst the increase in the housing requirements to meet the latest LHN will be necessary to make the Local Plan sound will contribute to meeting a greater proportion of the affordable need, given it is not viable to deliver more than 40% affordable housing on site, it is considered that, as mentioned in relation to policy DS01, the Council need to consider facilitating the delivery of a greater number of homes overall to maximise affordable housing delivery. Without such a move, it is clear that the strategy of the Council will be ineffective in meeting the identified need for affordable housing.

Taylor Wimpey support the inclusion of criteria 3f) in policy AP01 which recognises that sites on the edge of sustainable settlements can be granted planning permission for residential development where completions have failed to meet 85% of the requirement in the previous three years. This is a positive step which will provide flexibility in supply in situations where delivery of allocated sites falls behind expectations. However, it is suggested that clarity is needed as to where the 85% figure will be reported annually (e.g. AMR, Land Supply Report) so there can be no ambiguity when the criteria is engaged.

The policy would also be enhanced to make it clear that development on sites on the edge of sustainable settlements will be supported when the Council are unable to demonstrate a deliverable five-year land supply. This approach would be consistent with national policy, specifically paragraph 11d and footnote 9 of the NPPF (2024).

Add reference to character being a consideration in the appropriate mix of dwellings on site

To be sound, the policy needs to be amended to provide an element of flexibility to allow the differing characteristics of sites to be taken into account. Whilst encouraging a mix of dwellings on site is supported, the wording of the policy suggests that mix will only be informed only be the latest Council evidence – it does not set out any other considerations.

Housing mix is a key part of ensuring developments are designed and laid out appropriately for their context. Therefore, the policy should make it clear that this will be an important consideration in determining if the mix of dwellings proposed for a site is appropriate.