Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

To ensure the plan is justified and positively prepared (NPPF paragraph 35), a higher housing figure should
be adopted to account for the higher market and affordable housing need identified through HDC’s evidence
base.
HDC should be proposing a housing requirement under a new local plan which comprises at least the
minimum local housing need under the standard method. Any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring
areas should also be taken into account on top in establishing the amount of housing to be planned for
(paragraph 62 NPPF 2024).

HDC states at paragraph 1.8 of its draft local plan that it should be examined under the December 2023 version of the NPPF, in accordance with the transitional arrangements set out in Appendix 1 of the December 2024 NPPF. This states that for plans that have reached regulation 19 on or before 12th March 2025 and the housing requirement provided for within the plan is at least 80% of local housing need, the plan will be examined under the previous version of the NPPF. HDC's draft local plan claims that: "These circumstances apply to this Local Plan."

We do not agree with this approach, because we consider the draft local plan does not comply with Annex 1: Implementation, for the purpose of plan-making, in the NPPF (2024, as revised).

The draft local plan claims at paragraph 4.6 that Harborough's Local Housing Need figure is 534 homes per year. However paragraph 62 of the NPPF makes clear that: "To determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method in national planning practice guidance." For HDC this is 723 dwellings. The 534 homes per year within the draft local plan equates to only 73.8% of the standard method for HDC. Paragraph 61 of the 2023 NPPF (or paragraph 62 of the 2024 NPPF) state unmet need from neighbouring authorities should be in addition to the housing need for that authority. Transitional arrangements therefore do not apply to the draft local plan.

The draft local plan states at paragraph 4.5 that taking into account factors including the district's functional relationship with Leicester, their Statement of Common Ground (signed 2022) suggests the housing requirement should be increased by 123 homes per year to 657 homes per year between 2020 and 2036, to help meet Leicester's housing need. As such, it claims the annual housing requirement for the draft local plan is 657 dwellings per year from 2020 to 2036 and drops back to 534 homes per year for between 2036 and 2041.

Leicester's unmet needs are not the local housing needs within Harborough District. This means that the proposed housing requirements, subtracting the existing unmet needs of Leicester, are less than 80% of the local housing need, as calculated using the standard method in national planning practice guidance, published on 12 December 2024.

Furthermore, should it be considered that Leicester's unmet needs can be grouped with Harborough's (which we contest), housing need would still only be met for five years. Beyond that, housing need would not be met. This is not appropriate given the standard method projects over 10 years, plus strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15 year period from adoption (NPPF paragraph 22).

In addition to the above, the Harborough Local Housing and Employment Land Evidence Document (2024) states that 'the scale of affordable housing need is significant' (page 67). Paragraph 6.7 of the draft local plan states that HDC has 'identified a need for 421 affordable homes each year'. This would amount to around 78% of 534 dwellings (the standard method housing requirement), or around 64% of 657 dwellings (the annual housing requirement plus Leicester's unmet need).

This means that well over half of all housing delivered would be required to be affordable dwellings to meet the evidenced need for affordable homes. In order for the plan to be justified and positively prepared (NPPF paragraph 35), a higher housing figure should be adopted to take into account the higher affordable housing need identified through HDC's own evidence base. Increasing the housing requirement and allocating further sites would deliver more affordable housing. The plan is proposed to cover a period to 2041 and therefore lays out a proposed housing requirement for many years to come that is completely at odds with the objectives of the Government.

The overarching conclusion is that this draft local plan does not meet the objectives of Government in that HDC proposes for the draft local plan to be examined under the December 2023 NPPF which is detrimental to housing supply and the proposed housing requirements in the draft local plan do not meet the standard method for local housing need.

If your representation is more than 100 words, please provide a brief summary here:

HDC's draft local plan claims it should be examined under the December 2023 NPPF, but this is incorrect due to non-compliance with the 2024 NPPF's Annex 1. The plan's housing need figure of 534 homes per year is only 73.8% of the standard method requirement of 723 homes per year.

The draft local plan, which should be changed, currently does not meet the NPPF transitional arrangements and on this basis it should be examined under the December 2024 NPPF, not the December 2023 NPPF.
Please note the Inspector will determine the most appropriate procedure to adopt to hear those who have indicated that they wish to participate at the oral part of the examination.
Not positively prepared, not justified, not effective, not consistent with National Policy.

Reconsideration of the proposed plan period to meet at least the 15 year minimum. We consider it is more
appropriate for a period to at least 2045.

The draft local plan covers the proposed period 2020 to 2041.

We object to this plan period which should not look back some 5 to 6 years from the projected adoption of this local plan in 2026.

Furthermore, relevant evidence and proposed policy should be based on a period of a minimum 15-year period from adoption to anticipate and respond to long-term requirements and opportunities, such as those arising from major improvements in infrastructure (paragraph 22 of NPPF 2023).

The current LDS (2025) timetable of adoption is between October to December 2026. Even should this timetable be met, a plan to 2041 fails the requirements of a minimum 15-year period from adoption as set out in Paragraph 22 of the NPPF. This is because local plan years are not calendar years; they cover the housing monitoring period from 1st April to 31st March, and therefore adoption of the local plan between October to December 2026 is less than 15 years from 31st March 2026.As a minimum the plan period should be extended by one year. We consider it is more appropriate for a period to at least 2045. Paragraph 22 of NPPF also states that where larger scale developments such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns form part of the strategy for the area, policies should be set within a vision that looks further ahead (at least 30 years), to take into account the likely timescale for delivery. This applies to this emerging draft local plan because it did not reach regulation 19 stage by 20 July 2021. We request consideration and publication of HDC's position on this.

We request a re-think of the proposed housing requirement, with a range of options taking the local housing need under the standard method as a minimum, to be presented for consultation under a new formal consultation by HDC.

The 534 homes per year planned in the draft local plan only account for 73.8% of the standard method for HDC. Leicester's unmet needs are not the local housing needs within Harborough District. This means that the proposed housing requirements, subtracting Leicester's unmet needs, are less than 80% of the local housing need calculated using the standard method in national planning practice guidance, published on 12 December 2024.

Furthermore, even if Leicester's unmet needs were grouped with Harborough's (which they should not be), housing need would only be met for five years. This is inappropriate given the standard method projects over 10 years, and strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15-year period from adoption (Paragraph 22 of the NPPF).

In addition to the above, we have explained that the Harborough Local Housing and Employment Land Evidence Document (2024) states that 'the scale of affordable housing need is significant' (page 67). Paragraph 6.7 of the draft local plan states that HDC has 'identified a need for 421 affordable homes eachyear'. This would amount to around 78% of 534 dwellings (the standard method housing requirement), or around 64% of 657 dwellings (the annual housing requirement plus Leicester's unmet need).

This means that well over half of all housing delivered would be required to be affordable dwellings to meet the evidenced need for affordable homes. In order for the plan to be justified and positively prepared (NPPF paragraph 35), a higher housing figure should be adopted to take into account the higher affordable housing need identified through HDC's own evidence base. Increasing the housing requirement and allocating further sites would deliver more affordable housing.

To ensure the plan is justified and positively prepared (NPPF paragraph 35), a higher housing figure should be adopted to account for the higher market and affordable housing need identified through HDC's evidence base.

Part 2 (c) of the policy states 1,500 homes would be delivered on Site Allocations (Policy SA01) in Large Villages including 400 homes in Great Glen. As set out above, further dwellings should be allocated across the plan period, and Large Villages should have a higher proportion of growth directed to them.

Large Villages such as Great Glen are defined within the Settlement Hierarchy Assessment (January 2025) as having a good range of important and supporting services and facilities, including a local supermarket, public transport and access to employment opportunities either in the settlement or in the nearby Urban Area. It meets the day-today needs of residents and serves surrounding rural communities. They are sustainable places well able to accommodate the growth to meet housing need.

Land South of London Road was assessed within HDC's Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment 2021 (SHELAA) as Suitable, Available, Achievable, and Deliverable within 5 years for an estimated capacity of 178 dwellings (Ref: 21/8044). It acknowledges there are no insurmountable physical, environmental, or technical constraints.

The site forms a natural expansion to the west of Great Glen whist continuing to maintain an area of separation with settlement boundary of Oadby to the west. The site will therefore form a natural extension of the village boundary. We request identification of further growth at Great Glen including identification of the Site, controlled by BR, as residential-led development.

We would repeat that HDC should be proposing a housing requirement under a new local plan which comprises at least the minimum local housing need under the standard method. Any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas should also be taken into account in establishing the amount of housing to be planned for (paragraph 62 NPPF 2024).

We request a re-think of the proposed housing requirement, with a range of options taking the local housing need under the standard method as a minimum, to be presented for consultation under a new formal consultation by HDC. We request identification of growth at Land South of London Road, Great Glen, as residential-led development.

We also question whether the statutory duty to co-operate has been demonstrated by HDC in the preparation of this draft local plan because confirmation of any Housing Market Area shortfall and a Statement of Common Ground need to be prepared to cover the period beyond 2036.Please specify the modifications needed to make the Local Plan sound/legally compliant (Please note any non-compliance issue relating to the statutory Duty to Cooperate cannot be resolved through modification at examination). We request a re-think of the proposed housing requirement, with a range of options taking the local housing need under the standard method as a minimum, to be presented for consultation under a new formal consultation by HDC.
Not sound: not positively prepared, not justified, not effective, not cocnsistent with National Policy.

Wording should be added to part 1 of the policy which allows for flexibility, enabling it be in accordance with NPPF paragraph 35 (c) which states that plans should be effective and deliverable across the plan period. Part 1 should be amended to 'development will be permitted where it wherever possible...'.

We object to draft Policy DS03 as written. Part 1 of the policy states 'development will be permitted where it...' and then lists criteria a-e. BR considers it is not in accordance with the NPPF at paragraph 16 (b) which requires plans to be prepared positively, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable.

Wording should be added to part 1 of the policy which allows for flexibility, enabling it be in accordance with NPPF paragraph 35 (c) which states that plans should be effective and deliverable across the plan period. Part 1 should be amended to 'development will be permitted where it wherever possible...'.

Not sound: not positively prepared, not justified, not effective, not consistent with National Policy.

The policy should be amended so it is more concise and references CIL regulation 122 and also NPPF paragraph 57. The IDP should be amended to show what the contributions requested relate to (individual or cumulative impacts).

We consider the policy, as written, is overly detailed and repeats National Policy and therefore is not in accordance with the NPPF at paragraph 16 (f) which states that plans should serve a clear purpose, avoiding unnecessary duplication of policies that apply to a particular area, including policies in the NPPF.

Furthermore, we consider there should be a clear reference to contributions needing to be Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regulation 122 compliant in the policy and for the policy to be sound (and comply with paragraph 35 (c) which requires plans to be consistent with national policy) it must comply with NPPF paragraph 57, which is clear that planning obligations must only be sought where they meet all the following tests:

a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; b) directly related to the development; and c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. Development should only be required to mitigate its own impact and cannot be required to address existing deficiencies in infrastructure or services. It is therefore essential for the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) to clearly show the existing and known deficiencies in the current infrastructure, before reaching any conclusion on the cumulative effects of new development, and any contribution that is needed from new development to mitigate any additional individual and/or cumulative impacts. It is noted that the Stage 1 IDP was undertaken 2024. However, as written the cumulative/individual impacts are not split up. The NPPF requires for policies to be clearly written and unambiguous (paragraph 16). The policy should be amended SO it is more concise and references CIL regulation 122 and also NPPF paragraph 57. The IDP should be amended to show what the contributions requested relate to (individual or cumulative impacts).
Not sound: not positively prepared, not justified, not effective, not consistent with National Policy.

We request identification of further growth at Great Glen including the Site, controlled by Barratt Redrow, as residential-led development. Development at land south of London Road, Great Glen, is a logical, accessible, and sustainable location.

We do not object to the proposed new housing sites but we do object to the extent and scale of proposed sites, which has arisen as a result of the proposed inadequate housing requirement.

As mentioned previously we request identification of further growth at Great Glen including identification of the Site, controlled by Barratt Redrow, as residential-led development. Development at land south of London Road, Great Glen, is a logical, accessible, and sustainable location.

The Site is the subject of detailed assessment which has informed the vision and master planning for development of the Site. Technical work has been undertaken to demonstrate that the site is deliverable and that there are no constraints to prevent the allocation of The Site as a residential-led development in the draft local plan. This was presented within the previously submitted Vision Document. The Site was assessed within HDC's Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment 2021 (SHELAA) as Suitable, Available, Achievable, and Deliverable within 5 years for an estimated capacity of 178 dwellings (Ref: 21/8044). It acknowledges there are no insurmountable physical, environmental, or technical constraints.

We request identification of further growth at Great Glen including the Site, controlled by Barratt Redrow, as residential-led development. Development at land south of London Road, Great Glen, is a logical, accessible, and sustainable location.
Not sound: not positively prepared, not justified, not effective, not consistent with National Policy.

Take out the Site south of London Road (SHELAA Ref: 21/8044) from the proposed Area of Separation
between Oadby and Great Glen.

Part 2 of Policy DS04 states that to maintain the distinctiveness of settlements and prevent the merging of these, Areas of Separation have been identified. We note some of the Site is proposed as a small part of a vast tract of land identified as an Area of Separation between Oadby and Great Glen (limb C of part 2).

The Area of Separation within the Site south of London Road is inappropriate insofar as it does not recognise both the distance from the allocation and the existing barrier formed by London Road and the A6. There is scant assessment of the land south of London Road within the Areas of Separation Report (2024) to justify its inclusion within the Area of Separation aiming to prevent coalescence between development to the north (the strategic development area within Policy SA02) from the settlement edge of Great Glen. We oppose this land allocation as inappropriate and unjustified.
Not sound: not positively prepared, not justified, not effective, not consistent with National Policy.

The suggested tenure split at part b) should be moved to the supporting text and wording should be added to make it clear that it is guidance only.
Reference to Registered Providers support for the proposed mix and type of affordable housing should be added to part C as appropriate evidence to determining whether the proposed mix is suitable.

We object to the inclusion of a suggested tenure split for affordable housing in part 1(b) of Policy HN01. The proposed split accords with the Harborough Local Housing and Employment Land Evidence Report (February 2025), however this document represents a 'snapshot in time' as demonstrated by the change in suggested percentages from this document and the Leicestershire Housing Economic Needs Assessment (June 2022). It is considered that reference to preferred tenure splits should be moved to the supporting text and clearly identified as 'guidance' and the exact split will be agreed on a site by site basis.

We acknowledge that part c) of the policy states 'the mix and type of affordable housing development will be informed by the latest housing needs assessment'. Evidence documents on housing need are a snapshot in time and can therefore become out of date quickly. BR therefore consider that reference should also be made in Policy HN01 to the mix and type of affordable housing being informed by Registered Provider. Registered Providers are the organisations who deliver and manage the affordable rented properties and are therefore best placed to confirm whether the mix and type of affordable housing proposed is suitable. Support by a Registered Provider for a scheme should be sufficient evidence that the proposed mix is suitable. The suggested tenure split at part b) should be moved to the supporting text and wording should be added to make it clear that it is guidance only. Reference to Registered Providers support for the proposed mix and type of affordable housing should be added to part C as appropriate evidence to determining whether the proposed mix is suitable.

Not sound: not positively prepared, not justified, not effective, not consistent with National Policy.

Part 2 should be amended to state homes should meet the standards ‘wherever possible’. If Part 3 is retained, this should be subject to viability and site suitability.

We object to the inclusion of Table 10 in the supporting text and paragraph 6.14 of Policy HN01, which states the recommended mix of housing size (number of bedrooms) by tenure to meet demand should be used as a starting point for considerations. Including this means the policy does not comply with paragraph 35(b) of the NPPF, which requires plans to be justified and based on proportionate evidence. Housing mix should be determined on a site-by-site basis, with market demand at the time of application being a key consideration.

Part 2 of the policy states: "All homes will be expected to meet accessible and adaptable M4(2) Building Regulations technical standards. In seeking this type of home, regard will be had to any evidence provided concerning site-specific factors that may make it impossible to meet the accessible and adaptable standard" [Savills Emphasis]. We highlight that M4(2) standards are not a compulsory requirement in building regulations. The proposed policy wording reflects the planning policy guidance requirements that policies should consider site-specific factors such as topography and flood risk (Reference ID: 56-008-20160519). However, planning policy guidance also states that any higher accessibility standards set by a Council should consider the overall impact on viability (Reference ID: 56-007-20150327). A Viability Report has been completed, but it only provides detailed analysis of the strategic sites. Part 3 of the policy states: "All major residential developments will be expected to contribute to wheelchair accessibility as follows: a) A minimum of 5% of market homes must meet Building Regulations technical standard M4(3)A (wheelchair adaptable); and b) A minimum of 10% of affordable homes must meet standard M4(3)B (wheelchair accessible)" [Savills Emphasis]. Paragraph 7.45 of the Harborough Local Housing and Employment Land Evidence Report (February 2025) states that local authorities can only request M4(3)(B) accessible compliance from homes they have nomination rights for, but can request M4(3)(A) adaptable compliance from market housing. Paragraph 7.34 estimates a need for 364 wheelchair user homes over the plan period, equating to 17 dwellings per year. Requirements within Local Plans need to be justified and underpinned by evidence. The evidence summarized above indicates that asking all major residential developments to contribute to this need is onerous. As a result, we do not believe this justifies the requirements set out in parts 3(a) and (b) of the policy. Therefore, this policy does not comply with NPPF paragraph 35(b), which states plans are sound if they are based on proportionate evidence.

Not Sound: not positively prepared, not justified, not effective, not compliant with National Policy.

Limb b of the policy should be amended to provide an approximate density to be agreed on a site by site basis.

Text within the policy proposes a minimum density of 40 dwellings per hectare in Lutterworth and Market Harborough town centres, and 30 dwellings per hectare elsewhere. However, we oppose minimum density standards for rural areas. The NPPF (December 2023) supports minimum density standards for city and town centres or areas well-served by public transport (paragraph 129(a)).

While minimum density standards can apply to other areas, they should reflect accessibility and be determined on a site-by-site basis, considering the character and density of existing development. Limb b of the policy should be amended to provide an approximate density to be agreed on a site by site basis.

Not Sound: not positively prepared, not justified, not effective, not compliant with National Policy.