Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

The housing requirement is likely to need to increase to ensure the District’s housing need meets the NPPF transitional arrangements and HDC need to demonstrate that the proposed housing requirement will meet affordable housing needs – at the moment, the evidenced need is 421 dwelling per annum which would be well over half of the proposed requirement.

David Wilson Homes East Midlands (‘DWH’) strongly support part 2 c) of the policy which confirms that a minimum of 150 dwellings will be delivered within Fleckney. The supporting text includes a table setting out the settlement hierarchy. DWH support Fleckney being identifed as a ‘large village’. In the Settlement Hierarchy Assessment (January 2025) Fleckney is assessed as the joint 5th most sustainable settlement (audit score of 115) in the District. On page 40 of the Settlement Hierarchy
Assessment the document recognises that ‘Fleckney has a good range of local services, facilities and employment opportunities serving the day to day needs of the residents as well as those from neighbouring villages. The villages has regular bus links to Leicester and Market Harborough’. It is clear that the Council’s evidence demonstrates that the settlement is sustainable and therefore HDC’s strategy to direct housing growth to Fleckney is justified (National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’) paragraph 35).
DWH’s is promoting ‘Land North of Kilby Road and land West of Longgrey, Fleckney’ (Site F1) which is proposed to be allocated within the consultation plan. DWH strongly support the proposed allocation of Site F1. The site is immediately adjacent to Fleckney and is in a sustainable and accessible location. DWH have also recently submitted an outline planning application to HDC on Site Allocation for up to 170 dwellings (reference 25/00515/OUT). Draft Policy DS01 is clear that HDC are planning to accommodate a ‘minimum’ of 6,422 new homes which includes a minimum of 150 homes in Fleckney.

A range of detailed technical work has been undertaken and submitted with the application which clearly demonstrates that there are no technical constraints which would impact on the delivery of the Site F1 in the short term to meet HDC’s immediate housing needs and that the site can accommodate 170 dwellings at an appropriate density.
DWH look forward to working with HDC throughout the plan preparation process to deliver Site F1.
Policy DS01 sets out the housing requirement for Harborough District Council (HDC). The policy states that ‘the housing requirement for Harborough District is 13,182 between 2020 and 2041. The annual requirement is 657 homes per year between 2020 and 2036, and 534 homes per year between 2036 and 2041’.
The supporting text of the consultation plan (paragraphs 4.4 - 4.7) explains how the housing requirement figure has been derived.
It states that the starting point for determining the amount of housing is utilising the Government’s standard method calculation (534 dwellings per year) (December 2023) and neighbouring Leicester City’s unmet need. Paragraph 4.6 confirms that ‘taking into account various factors, including the district’s functional relationship with Leicester, the Statement of Common Ground suggests our 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. This is why the annual housing requirement is higher for the 2020 to 2036 period. The Statement of Common Ground including the amount of unmet need in Leicester is based on the Government’s standard method for calculating housing need at the time of preparation’ [Savills Emphasis].
HDC’s consultation plan states at paragraph 1.8, transitional arrangements may apply as per limb a) of Annex 1 of the 2024 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 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 534 homes per year planned for 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) states that unmet need from neighbouring authorities should be in addition to the housing need for that authority.
Leicester’s unmet needs are not the local housing needs within HDC and therefore we consider that the housing requirement should increase.
Although we support HDC accommodating the shortfall from Leicester City up to 2036, there is no evidence currently which demonstrates that there will not be a shortfall arising from the wider Housing Market Area beyond 2036. The proposed housing requirement makes no allowance for delivering homes above and beyond the minimum 2023 standard method for the District
between 2036 and 2041.
Furthermore, DWH note that the identified affordable housing need for the District is high in relation to the proposed delivery.
Paragraph 6.7 of the Publication Plan states that ‘we have identified a need for 421 affordable homes each year’. This means that over half of all housing being planned for (634 - 657 dwellings per annum) would be required to be affordable dwellings to meet the evidenced need. The Harborough Local Housing and Employment Land Evidence Document (2024) states that ‘the scale of
affordable housing need is significant’ (page 67). In order for the plan to be justified and positively prepared (NPPF paragraph 35), a higher housing figure could be justified to take into account the higher affordable housing need identified through HDC’s evidence base. By increasing the housing requirement and allocating further sites this as a result would deliver more affordable housing.
Furthermore, it is important that the housing requirement is kept under review throughout the plan-making process. The requirement for this is outlined in the PPG which states that “Strategic policy-making authorities will need to calculate their local housing need figure at the start of the plan-making process. This number should be kept under review and revised where appropriate” [Savills Emphasis] (Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 2a-008-20241212).

Part 1 of the policy should be amended to: ‘where possible, development will be permitted…’

David Wilson Homes East Midlands (DWH) consider that draft Policy DS03 should be reworded. Part 1 of the policy
states ‘Development will be permitted where it…’ and then lists criteria a-e. DWH consider that it is not in accordance
with the National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’) (December 2023) (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 …’
Part 1 d) of the policy states that development will be permitted where it ‘contributes to the delivery of the national
Nature Recovery Network Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Local Nature Recovery Strategy’. F1 is not located
within the areas in the local habitat maps and will be delivering over 10% Biodiversity Net Gain on site.

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).
Clarity is requested on whether the Viability Report has tested all the section 106 contributions.

David Wilson Homes East Midlands (‘DWH’) will seek to provide the developer contributions required for development proposals in relation to F1 as long as they are Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulation 122 compliant and in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’) paragraph 57 which clearly states 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’
There should be a clear reference to NPPF paragraph 57 and CIL 122 Regulations in the policy.
Appendix A of Harborough’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan (‘IDP’) February 2025 sets out the infrastructure that is
required in relation to the proposed allocations. For Site F1 in relation to transport infrastructure the following is listed:
Transport Infrastructure
• Walking and Cycling Infrastructure Measures to support the delivery of the site: £29,000
• Public Transport Infrastructure Measures to support the delivery of the site: £30,000
• Travel Planning Measures to support the delivery of the site: £11,000
• Junction Improvement Measures to support the delivery of the site: £339,000
Evidence has not been provided that the highways contributions sought for Site F1 meets the above tests.
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 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 in 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).
Part 5 of the policy states that ‘the policies within this Local Plan have been viability tested, and it is the expectation
that policy compliant contributions will be made’. The IDP has tested the ‘strategic sites’ specifically, however it has
not tested all the draft allocations and therefore it is not clear whether all the contributions set out in the IDP have
been tested. For a plan to be sound it must be justified and based on proportionate evidence (NPPF paragraph 35
b)).

The column title of the table listing the proposed allocations should be amended to specifically state ‘minimum homes’.

David Wilson Homes East Midlands (DWH) strongly support Policy SA01 and the proposed allocation of Site F1 ‘Land north of Kilby Road and land west of Longgrey’.
Policy SA01 states the following:
1. ‘Site Allocations to support and enable the delivery of the Development Strategy Policies DS01 to DS05 are shown on the Policies Map and identified in the Site Allocation Schedule below.
2. Where a masterplan is required, this should address the site-specific requirements set out in Appendix 6.
3. We will seek to enter into planning performance agreements with promoters of strategically important sites to ensure a programmed approach to determination and site delivery/implementation’.
DWH have the following comments to make on points 1-3 above:
Point 1 is supported by DWH.
• Point 2 only relates to those allocations where a masterplan is required. A masterplan is not required for Site F1 and
therefore we have not provided specific comments on the requirements set out in Appendix 6.
• Point 3 is supported by DWH.
Policy SA01 includes a schedule which lists the proposed allocations. Part 2 of Policy DS01 states that land for a ‘minimum of
6,422 dwellings’ [Savills Emphasis] which includes the 150 dwellings being directed to Fleckney. In order to align with Policy
DS01, Policy SA1 and the schedule of sites must be clear that the proposed yield included for the sites is a ‘minimum’. At plan stage, the proposed yields are indicative and there needs to be flexibility in the policies to allow for the yields to respond to detailed technical and design work at the planning application stage. For example, DWH has recently submitted a planning application for Site F1 (reference 25/00515/OUT) which clearly demonstrates that the site can accommodate 170 dwellings not just 150 dwellings. In a period where the Government is seeking to significantly boost the supply of homes (NPPF paragraph 60), the policy should be positively prepared to allow for proposed allocations to deliver more dwellings where appropriate (NPPF
paragraph 35a).
A range of detailed technical work has been undertaken and submitted with the application which clearly demonstrates that there are no technical constraints which would impact on the delivery of the Site F1 in the short term to meet HDC’s immediate housing needs and that the site can accommodate 170 dwellings at an appropriate density.
Page 48 of the consultation plan sets out the proposed policy requirements for Site F1. The table below sets out DWH’s response to these requirements. In short, DWH has no fundamental concerns with the proposed policy requirements.
SEE TABLE IN ATTACHED SCANNED REP

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.

Whilst David Wilson Homes East Midlands (‘DWH’) will be delivering a policy compliant amount of affordable housing
on site, DWH do not agree in 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.
DWH acknowledges 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. DWH 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.

Part 2 should be amended as below:
‘‘Homes wherever possible should meet accessible and adaptable M4(2) Building
Regulations technical standards subject to viability and site suitability. 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’.

If kept in the policy, Part 3 should be amended as below:
‘Subject to viability and site suitability 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]

David Wilson Homes East Midlands (‘DWH’) will be providing a range of tenues on site and the exact mix will be agreed at the reserved matters application stage. However, DWH object to table 10 being included in the supporting text and paragraph 6.14 which confirms that ‘Table 10 shows the recommended mix of housing size (number of bedrooms) by tenure to meet demand. This should be used as a starting point for considerations as to the size of homes needed across the different tenures’ [Savills Emphasis]. Including this means that the policy is not in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’) paragraph 35 b) which states that plans are sound if they are justified and are based on proportionate evidence. Housing mix should be determined on a site by site basis and market demand at the point of the application should be a key consideration.
Part 2 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].
DWH would like to highlight that M4(2) standards are not a compulsory requirement in building regulations. The
proposed policy wording reflects the PPG requirements that policies should take into account Site specific factors
such as topography and flood risk (Reference ID: 56-008-20160519). However, the PPG is also clear 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 this only provides detailed analysis of the strategic sites. In
part 2 of the policy there should be clear reference to viability and should be amended as follows:
‘All Homes wherever possible will be expected to should meet accessible and adaptable M4(2) Building Regulations technical standards subject to viability and site suitability. 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’.
Part 3
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) also
notes ‘local authorities only have the right to request M4(3)(B) accessible compliance from homes for which they
have nomination rights. They can, however, request M4(3)(A) adaptable compliance from the wider (market) housing
stock’. Paragraph 7.34 of the report states that there is ‘a need estimate of 364 wheelchair user homes [across the
plan period] – equating to 17 dwellings per annum’.
Requirements within Local Plans, need to be justified and underpinned by evidence. The evidence summarised
above states it is considered that asking for all major residential developments to contribute to the need is onerous.
As a result DWH do not think that this justifies the requirement set out in parts 3 (a) and (b) of the policy. Therefore
this policy is not in accordance with NPPF paragraph 35 (b) which states plans are sound if they are based on
proportionate evidence.

Part b of the policy should be amended to the following:
a) Approximately 30-40 dwellings per hectare elsewhere, to be agreed on a site by site basis.

The policy text states that a minimum of 40 dwellings per hectare should be delivered within Lutterworth and Market
Harborough town centres and 30 dwellings per hectare elsewhere. We do not support the proposed use of minimum density standards for rural areas. The National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’) (December 2023) encourages the use of minimum density standards for city and town centres or other locations that are well served by public transport (paragraph 129 (a)). Minimum density standards can be considered for other parts of the plan area but this may be better reflected as a range reflecting accessibility. We consider that density should be agreed on a site by site basis rather than a blanket figure, which fails to take account of prevailing character and density of existing development.

Clarity is requested in relation to whether part 2 of the policy applies to draft allocations.
The policy should be either removed or if not wording should be amended to the below:
‘Subject to site suitability and viability specialist housing for older people will be required as an integral part of strategic
residential development of 100 XXX [Council to confirm] dwellings or more at a rate of at least 10% of all dwellings
proposed, providing the site offers a suitable location for the provision of this type of accommodation.’
‘Strategic’ should be clearly defined.
The Council should be identifying specific sites for specialist accommodation.

David Wilson Homes East Midlands (‘DWH’) consider that it is not clear whether all draft allocations are subject to the requirement included in part 2 of the policy which states that ‘specialist housing for older people will be required as an integral part of all residential development of 100 dwellings or more at a rate of at least 10% of all dwellings proposed, providing the site offers a suitable location for the provision of this type of accommodation’ [Savills Emphasis]. It is acknowledged that Site F1 is more than 100 dwellings but it is not considered that the Site is of a scale or in a suitable location for specialist accommodation.
Table 7.6 in the Harborough Local Housing and Employment Land Evidence Report (February 2025) demonstrates that the additional units needed by 2041 is 819 bedspaces (including previous shortfall/surplus). 10% of all dwellings proposed across the plan period is 1,318 dwellings, therefore the policy as written is unreasonable (and will deliver over the need). It is not justified and therefore is not in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’) paragraph 35 (b).
Furthermore, paragraph 14.31 of the report also states that ‘larger strategic sites should be expected to make provision for a range of specialist types of homes for the District’s growing older population in order to boost supply. Such provision can help to contribute positively to the pace of housing delivery on such sites’ [Savills Emphasis]. It is considered that if this requirement is included within the plan that it should only apply to sites that are identified as ‘strategic’ rather than all sites of 100 dwellings or more. However, as the plan is written it is unclear clear what the
definition of ‘strategic’ is. The Viability Report (January 2025) specifically tests the ‘strategic sites’ in the consultation plan. Sites tested include: Land between Scraptoft and Bushby (S1), Market Harborough Cluster (MH1, MH2 and MH3) and Land South of Gartree Road & East of Oadby (OA1) and therefore this would suggest that these are the sites that should be delivering the specialist accommodation according to the Council’s own evidence (Harborough Local Housing and Employment Land Evidence Report (February 2025)).
Furthermore, the Council should be identifying specific sites for specialist accommodation rather than applying a
blanket provision and relying on residential sites that may not be appropriate.

The requirement for 10% custom and self-build on developments of 40 dwellings should be removed from the policy.
Paragraph 7.73 of the Harborough Local Housing and Employment Land Evidence Report (February 2025) provides a potential approach to meeting the need identifed on the register, one of the options includes ‘working with the County Council, as a key public sector landowner, to support increased delivery on sites which it controls’ it is considered that this should be explored by HDC rather than passing the responsibility onto the developers and including a blanket policy which is not appropriate for every Site.
If the policy remains then developers should only be ‘encouraged’ to consider delivering custom and self-build plots on sites or the Council should allocate specific sites to meet the identified need. The policy should also state that a mechanism will be added to the S106 Agreement which reverts self / custom Build plots back to the developer should they be marketed for a set period (e.g. 3 months) and there is no interest.

Part 1 of the policy states that ‘to contribute to meeting demand for self and custom build plots, all non-specialist
development of 40 dwellings (gross) or more must provide at least 10% of the total number of dwellings as self or
custom build plots’. David Wilson Homes East Midlands (‘DWH’) consider that the requirement for custom and selfbuild housing plots should be determined on a case by case basis and based on the preferences of those on the selfbuild register.
Table 7.13 of the Harborough Local Housing and Employment Land Evidence Report (February 2025) shows that based on Harborough District Council’s monitoring there is a shortfall of 172 plots, however, paragraph 7.69 states confirms that ‘the permissions data above excludes permission for 28 plots as part of the outline consent on the East of Lutterworth SDA (granted in Base Period 7) which, if included, would reduce the shortfall to 144 units’. It is considered therefore unreasonable (and will deliver over the need) for all sites over 40 or more dwellings to provide at least 10% self-build, the register is purely people with an interest in building their own homes and those registered have not been means tested. There is no obligation for the Council to deliver land for everyone listed on the register.
In addition to the above, the very nature of self and custom build housing means that it is difficult to plan for precise locations of delivery. The delivery of such provision can present a number of operational and health and safety issues which has the potential to act as a drag on the progression of development sites. Such requirements should be based on local evidence such as the self and custom build register and local eligibility test (Planning Practice Guidance: Paragraph: 025 Reference ID: 57-025-20210508).
DWH considers that the requirement for all development sites over 40 dwellings to deliver custom and self-build homes should be removed. However, should the requirement remain, given the points we have made above on lack of demand, the policy should be made clear that where self-build / custom is provided on development sites, there will be a mechanism within the S106 Agreement which reverts self/custom build plots back to the developer should the plots be marketed for a certain period and there is no interest.

Part 3 (f) of the policy should be amended as below:
‘Relates to a settlement in Tiers 1 - 5 of the settlement hierarchy and is necessary to meet strategic housing
needs established in Policy DS01 or where there is a lack of Five Year Housing Land Supply’.

David Wilson Homes (‘DWH’) generally supports Policy AP01. Part 3 of the policy provides flexibility, allowing
development on land adjoining the existing built up area of the identified settlements where it meets the requirements
set out in 2 (a) to (c) of the policy and at least one of the requirements set out in part 3 of the policy. Paragraph 7.4
of the supporting text states:
‘This policy also permits some development in areas adjoining sustainable settlements, provided it meets specific criteria. Again, this is intended to help us meet the housing and employment needs we outlined in Chapter 4, providing an extra degree of flexibility in supply’.
This approach is welcomed and is considered to be generally in accordance with the National Planning Policy
Framework (December 2023) (‘NPPF’) paragraph 35 (a) which requires local plans to be positively prepared.
It is however considered that the policy could be amended slightly to provide additional flexibility, particularly when
Harborough District Council does not have a current Five Year Housing Land Supply.