Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

The housing requirement should be increased to ensure the District’s housing need meets the NPPF transitional
arrangements and addresses the acute affordable housing need. As a result, further sites should be allocated such as
BDWH’s Site at Lubenham (planning application reference 25/00295/OUT).

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].
Furthermore, as 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.
The consultation 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, 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. 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. This approach is not positively prepared or aspirational (National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 36a).
Leicester’s unmet needs are not the local housing needs within HDC. 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. Therefore as written, the consultation plan is not in accordance with 2023 NPPF paragraph 35 which requires plans to be consistent with national policy, positively prepared and effective.
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 consultation plan states that HDC has ‘identified a need for 421 affordable homes
each year’. This would amount to around 64% of 657 dwellings (the annual housing requirement per year between 2020 and 2036) and around 78% of 534 dwellings (the housing requirement between 2036 and 2041) per annum currently being planned for. This means that well over half of all housing delivered would be required to be affordable dwellings to meet the evidenced need. 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 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 2 (e) of the policy states ‘at least 350 homes will be delivered in Small Villages’ with a minimum of 28 new dwellings being delivered in Lubenham. As set out above, it is considered that further dwellings should be allocated across the plan period and the ‘small villages’ should
have a higher proportion of growth directed to them.
The supporting text includes a table setting out the settlement hierarchy. BDWH object to Lubenham being categorised as a ‘small village’. The definition of a Small Village in the Settlement Hierarchy Assessment (January 2025) is: ‘The settlement has a limited range of important and supporting services and facilities. It can contribute to meeting some of its residents’ day to day needs. BDWH objects to this description of Lubenham. It is considered that the village has a good range of services and is also within close proximity (and has sustainable transport access) to Market Harborough which is the largest and most sustainable settlement in the District. So it is therefore not a ‘small village’ which is remote from key shops, services and facilities.
Page 70 of HDC’s Settlement Hierarchy Assessment (January 2025) acknowledges that ‘Lubenham has a reasonable level of services and facilities for its size and benefits from a scheduled bus service. It is close to Market Harborough with its extended range of employment opportunities, facilities and shops. It is considered that Lubenham’s identification as a Small Village is appropriate as it can meet some of the
day-to-day needs of its residents’. Therefore, Lubenham is considered to be suitable for more development than the minimum 28 dwellings currently being proposed.
BDWH are promoting land south of Laughton Road, Lubenham for residential development (SHELAA reference: 21/8017). The Site comprises of approximately 4.38 hectares (circa 10.82 acres) of agricultural (grazing) land with an existing access point from Laughton Road.
An outline planning application was submitted by BDWH in February 2025 (ref: 25/00295/OUT) for residential development and potential community shop/facility. 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 in the short term to meet HDC’s immediate housing needs and that the scale of development proposed complements the settlement.

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

Barratt David Wilson Homes North Midlands (BDWH) 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. BDWH 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 2023 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 …’

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).

Barratt David Wilson Homes North Midlands (‘BDWH’) consider that the policy, as written, is overly detailed which
repeats National Policy and therefore is not in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (December
2023) (‘NPPF’) 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 this Framework, where relevant)’
[Savills Emphasis].
Furthermore, BDWH 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.
NPPF paragraph 57 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)

Further Sites should be allocated, including within the ‘small village’ category. HDC should consider allocating BDWH’s Site at Lubenham, which has a live application submitted for around 90 dwellings

Barratt David Wilson Homes North Midlands (BDWH) consider that further sites should be allocated and the housing requirement should be increased across the plan period. As set out in our response to DS01, it is considered that further sites should be allocated within the identified ‘small villages’ as no sites have been specifically allocated within this category of settlement. BDWH are promoting a Site south of Laughton Road, Lubenham for residential development. The Site comprises of approximately 4.38 hectares (circa 10.82 acres) of agricultural (grazing) land with an existing access point into the Site from Laughton Road.
An outline planning application was submitted by BDWH in February 2025 (ref: 25/00295/OUT) for around 90
dwellings with land safeguarded for a community shop or facility. 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 in the short term to meet HDC’s immediate housing needs and that the scale of development proposed complements the settlement.

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.

Barratt David Wilson Homes North Midlands (‘BDWH’) 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.
BDWH 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. BDWH 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.

As written the policy is not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy (NPPF 2023 paragraph 35).
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:
‘Where possible and 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].

Barratt David Wilson Homes North Midlands (‘BDWH’) 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’ 2023) 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.
BDWH also object to parts 2 and 3 of policy HN03 as written.
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].
BDWH 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.
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].
a)
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 BDWH 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.

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 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.

Barratt David Wilson Homes North Midlands (‘BDWH’) object to 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].
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 not justified and therefore is not in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’) paragraph 35 (b) as it overprovides for the evidenced need.
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 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 ultimately identifying specific sites for specialist accommodation rather than 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 HDC should allocate specific sites to meet the identified need.

Barratt David Wilson Homes North Midlands (‘BDWH’) object to policy HN05. 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’. BDWH do not support large sites being required to deliver a percentage of self-build housing. 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. There is no evidence to suggest that there is great demand for provision of plots within new build estates. 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).

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’.

Barratt David Wilson Homes (‘BDWH’) 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.