Please note that paragraph 2.40 and paragraph 4.47 incorrectly refer to the provision of 35,600 dwellings in the Central Leicestershire Policy Area. The Panel have confirmed that this figure should be 35,450.

2.1 In this Chapter we consider whether the Structure Plan's locational strategy adequately reflects the overall objectives of the Plan and is consistent with national and emerging regional planning guidance. We examine the Plan's proposed policy framework to ascertain whether it is likely to achieve a sustainable pattern of development consistent with those objectives.

2.2 The Structure Plan Authorities published pre-EIP changes to the Structure Plan affecting the locational strategy, at about the same time as the publication of the Secretary of State's proposed changes to Regional Planning Guidance. In particular, the Plan's new Strategy Policy 2 focuses on the role of the Central Leicestershire Policy Area (CLPA), which contains about 55% of the Structure Plan Area's population.

2.3 New Strategy Policies 3A and 3B give a Structure Plan interpretation of the developing methodology associated with the sequential approach to the location of new development, and provide other criteria for assessing the suitability of land for development.

2.4 The Panel has also assessed the role of Strategy Policy 4 which deals with Strategic Greenfield Sites. We have particularly examined whether that policy gives adequate guidance for the scale, form and content of any greenfield land development that may be necessary. We have, in the light of the views of some EIP participants, also considered whether the policy is necessary at all to guide District Planning Authorities in the identification of greenfield land for development in their local plans.

The Central Leicestershire Policy Area

2.5 The CLPA comprises the whole of Leicester and Oadby and Wigston and parts of the Districts of Blaby, Charnwood, Harborough and Hinckley and Bosworth. It includes an area of rural hinterland beyond the urban area of the Leicester conurbation. The Introduction to Chapter 2 of the Deposit Draft Structure Plan explains that the CLPA has been defined to help direct development to the existing built-up areas of Leicester and its adjoining settlements, to reduce the amount of housing development outside that area and to balance housing and employment development within its boundaries. The advantages of this approach are identified in paragraph 2.3 of the explanatory memorandum, and the concept of the CLPA is expressed in Structure Plan policies on housing and employment land provision.

2.6 The Structure Plan Authorities came to the view that because the CLPA is central to the Plan's Overall Strategy, it should be the subject of a specific policy in that part of the Plan. New Strategy Policy 2 was therefore introduced in the proposed pre-EIP changes. The Panel supports that approach. We consider that the role of this policy in setting out a quantum of housing and employment development to be provided within the CLPA is a straightforward and clearly understandable way of representing the focus of development the CLPA is intended to promote. Support is given in paragraph 4.65 of Draft RPG for co-operation and joint working on the management of development between authorities across sub-regional housing and market areas, including Leicester.

2.7 PPG12 advises that housing or employment provisions below district level should only be included in Structure Plans where it is necessary to distinguish between the needs of different areas within a district for strategic purposes. Some districts within the Structure Plan area fall partly within the CLPA and partly outside it, and we accept that the identification of development requirements within the CLPA broken down by district is justified by the central role of the CLPA and its objectives in the Structure Plan.

2.8 Although most EIP participants supported the concept of the CLPA, we recognise that a minority felt that it undervalued opportunities for sustainable development outside the CLPA, particularly having regard to the future economic and social well being of the main towns. The main towns are listed in new Strategy Policy 3A as Ashby, Coalville, Hinckley/Earl Shilton, Loughborough, Lutterworth, Market Harborough, Melton Mowbray, Shepshed, Oakham and Uppingham. The explanatory memorandum explains that the main towns are the main urban areas outside the CLPA. We accept that such development opportunities do exist, and note that they are listed alongside the CLPA in the first priority locations for development in Strategy Policy 3A. We nevertheless conclude that the concept of the CLPA is a sound one, not only for the reasons set out in paragraph 2.4 of the explanatory memorandum, but also to maximise conditions favouring the integration of development with transport, an objective highlighted in paragraphs 2.2-2.3 of the explanatory memorandum.

2.9 Paragraph 2.6 of the explanatory memorandum indicates that the aim is to locate about 55% of new development in the Plan area within the CLPA. The Structure Plan Authorities said this was an ‘aspirational’ target which applied to new housing and employment development and was influenced by the fact that about 55% of the existing population of the Structure Plan area live within the CLPA. Some participants questioned the value of such a target, which might lead policies in the wrong direction and fail to focus on people’s needs. Others welcomed the existence of a target for development in the CLPA but argued that it should be 60% or 70% to better reflect the current emphasis of government policy on urban renaissance.

2.10 The Panel accepts that a target helps to give focus to the locational strategy and is useful for monitoring purposes. Although in terms of housing development the 55% target appears to be relatively modest we consider it a reasonable one for this Plan period. Our recommendations in Chapter 4 on the Structure Plan housing requirement have been framed with the attainment of the target in mind. The target will, however, require a significant shift to be made in the distribution of new housing, because statistics provided by the Structure Plan Authorities show that 55% of new houses built in the Structure Plan Area between 1991 and 2000 were outside the CLPA.

2.11 In the case of employment development it is not clear whether the target is intended to apply to the area of development on the ground or to the number of jobs created. In our view the latter is a more meaningful indicator, since a key aim of Strategy Policy 2 is to achieve a better balance between housing and employment within the CLPA. In this context we note that about 60% of the Plan area’s employees in employment are within the CLPA and that roughly 80% of the net increase in jobs between 1995 and 1998 took place within the CLPA. Measured in terms of jobs, therefore, a target of 55% for employment development looks distinctly conservative. We have already recommended in Chapter 1 that the monitoring indicators and targets in the Plan should be reviewed. In doing so, we think that it would be prudent to distinguish between housing and employment targets for the CLPA and define more clearly the measures being used. The target for the CLPA ought also to appear in the table of monitoring indicators and targets in Chapter 10 of the Structure Plan.

2.12 The bullet points in new Strategy Policy 2 are clearly meant to be objectives that the allocation of development to the CLPA is intended to support. The Panel considers that the first such matter, the direction of development to the existing built-up areas of the Leicester and Leicestershire Urban Area (LLUA) is not an objective in itself but rather a means of satisfying a broader objective, namely optimising the amount of development that can be accommodated within that urban area. We recommend an amendment to new Strategy Policy 2 to reflect that view.

2.13 Some participants indicated that they had some difficulty in identifying the precise boundaries of the CLPA from the Structure Plan Key Diagram. The Panel accepts that it may be difficult to represent the boundary with any more precision on a diagram which, because it is part of a strategic plan, is not set out on an Ordnance base. However, we consider that there should be sufficient information in the Structure Plan for there to be confidence in the extent of the defined area, particularly for monitoring purposes. We therefore suggest that precise information about the extent of the CLPA should be provided in the glossary at the end of the Structure Plan document. The potential would exist for the boundaries of the CLPA to be reviewed in any future review of the Structure Plan.

2.14 The Panel also considers that the identification of the CLPA as the subject of new Strategy Policy 2 requires a review to be carried out of the explanatory memorandum to ensure that the supporting material relating to the CLPA is appropriately located in relation to the policy. In particular, as we have already identified in Chapter 1, paragraphs 2.4 to 2.6 should be relocated as part of the supporting text to the policy.

Factors affecting the Location of Development

Overall Form and Structure of Strategy Policies 3A and 3B

2.15 The Panel recognises the efforts made by the Structure Plan Authorities to review the priority locations for development originally set out in Strategy Policy 2 of the Draft Deposit Structure Plan, in response to a range of representations. We regard new Strategy Policy 3 encompassing Policies 3A and 3B as having made progress in reconciling potential conflicts and remedying omissions in the Deposit Draft Plan policy. Policy 3A sets out priorities for the location of new development covering locations ranging from the Leicester City Centre and Main Town centres, through other inner and outer urban locations and land adjoining urban areas within and outside the CLPA, to the countryside.

2.16 Of the two sets of criteria in Policy 3B, one contains a range of sustainability criteria including the use of previously developed land and existing buildings, the capability of sites being served by the more sustainable transport modes, and the strengthening of local communities. The other set contains a wide range of other criteria to be taken into account, including physical and environmental constraints, infrastructure considerations and the need to achieve mixed use developments. There is also reference to a target that 80% of built development should be accommodated within and adjoining urban areas.

2.17 However these two new policies have given rise to further representations. We note that Policy 3A now reflects the influence of the CLPA on the location of new development, and it is right in our view that it should do so. Some participants felt that in applying a sequential approach to the location of new development the policy appears more complicated than Policy 1 of the Draft RPG. Whilst this may be so, there is a case in our view for Policy 3A to have some locational focus as part of a development plan, and to represent a clear application of the sequential approach in circumstances in which the CLPA has an important strategic influence on the location of development.

2.18 Notwithstanding that view, the Panel considers that Policy 3A fails to recognise explicitly the role that previously developed land has in the application of the sequential approach, as expressed in Policy 1 of the Draft RPG and in national planning guidance in PPG3 (paragraph 30) and PPG13 (paragraph 14). Furthermore, we agree with those EIP participants who consider that new Policies 3A and 3B provide a complicated and somewhat confusing basis for assessing development proposals in terms of both their location and their effect on interests of acknowledged importance. For example, it is difficult to know how the provisions of Policy 3B(i) to (iii) apply in relation to the sequential approach in Policy 3A(a) to (g), and to understand what weight should be given to those factors by comparison with the matters referred to in the bullet points in the last part of Policy 3B.

2.19 We therefore see some merit in simplifying Policies 3A and 3B to rectify or at least reduce these difficulties. We regard the alternative policy drafts provided by Charnwood Borough Council as a good starting point, both in terms of the incorporation of references to previously developed land and in the simplification of the policies. We consider a number of detailed points below.

Detailed Aspects of Strategy Policies 3A and 3B

2.20 The Panel understands that these policies are intended to apply to all types of development, and to the allocation of land in development plans as distinct from the consideration of applications for planning permission. We support the principle that the policies should be generally applicable to all types of development. However, variations of the sequential approach for housing in PPG3 may be found in national planning guidance in relation to other individual types and circumstances of development. These include industrial or commercial development in paragraphs 10 and 12 of PPG4, retail development in paragraph 1.11 of PPG6 and development at risk of flooding in paragraph 30 of PPG25. Other policies of the Structure Plan such as Employment Policy 3: Office Development, Shopping Policy 4: Out of Centre Retailing and Resource Management Policy 4: The Water Environment already reflect these circumstances.

2.21 It was put to us that new Strategy Policies 3A and 3B do not provide an appropriate means of guiding the location of large scale storage and distribution development within the Plan area, such as that at Magna Park near Lutterworth. We agree that such development has locational requirements that may often be best satisfied away from urban areas. We note that Draft RPG (paragraph 3.6) recognises that there may be variations in the application of the sequential approach because of the particular development requirements of a proposal. Policy 15 of Draft RPG indicates that additional sites for regional distribution facilities should be considered against the sequential approach to development locations, allowing for the large scale land and freight requirements of such development, pending a review of the policy following completion of the Strategic Freight Distribution Network Study. Paragraph 4.8 further indicates that such development should be located on the periphery of urban areas with good access to transport infrastructure.

2.22 We see no compelling case for excluding storage and distribution development from the general requirements of Strategy Policies 3A and 3B. However, we accept that because these types of development have very specific operational requirements, those requirements should be taken into account within the terms of the policies rather than being treated as exceptions. Consequently we consider that Policy 3B should contain a criterion that recognises the operational requirements of these types of land use, such as extensive storage areas or close access for long and heavy road vehicles to the strategic road network. The explanatory memorandum should in our view make it clear that there may be other types of development with requirements that do not fully fit the standard application of new Strategy Policies 3A and 3B.

2.23 We consider that express reference should be made in Strategy Policy 3A to the applicability of the policy to the allocation of land in local plans. We see no need for the policies to specify whether they apply to minimum scales of development, as they will apply to any development which in terms of scale or other attributes is significant enough to warrant such an allocation.

2.24 Some participants have questioned the reference to Uppingham in Strategy Policy 3A as a Main Town. We can find no definition for Main Towns in the explanatory memorandum (in paragraph 2.17 or elsewhere). It appears to us that Uppingham is a small town that might because of its status as a Main Town be the subject of development proposals disproportionate to the size and structure of the settlement, but nevertheless difficult to resist due to the Main Town status. We therefore propose that Uppingham be deleted from the list of Main Towns and its designation as a Rural Centre considered at the next review of the Rutland Local Plan.

2.25 The Panel has considered differing views as to whether reference should be made in Strategy Policy 3A to land within Rutland adjoining Stamford. We note that South Lincolnshire and East Rutland is mentioned in paragraph 4.65 of the Draft RPG as an area where co-operation and joint working between local authorities will be appropriate to manage the release of housing sites to achieve sustainable development. However, we consider that unless or until a joint study such as that referred to in paragraph 2.25 of the explanatory memorandum concludes that there is a case for development on land within Rutland supported by the services that Stamford offers, there is no justification for reference to such development in Policy 3A. The justification for the land to be mentioned in the policy is not strengthened by our recommendation that the housing distribution for Rutland should remain at the level set in the Draft Deposit Structure Plan, namely 2,350. Reference could be retained in the explanatory memorandum to an investigation of the potential of that land.

2.26 We consider that the same circumstances broadly apply to land within North West Leicestershire District near Swadlincote, Derbyshire. This area is also referred to in the explanatory memorandum as a possible subject for cross-boundary investigation. It is possible that some of this land might be regarded as previously developed land under the terms of PPG3, Annex C. However, that does not in our view in itself justify a reference to the land in new Strategy Policy 3A (where there is at present no reference), although mention in the explanatory memorandum might continue be appropriate. Nor in our view is the housing allocation proposed for North West Leicestershire additional justification, as the Panel is recommending a reduction in the allocation for that District that was proposed by the Structure Plan Authorities

2.27 Some participants suggested that it would be more appropriate to refer in criterion (g) of Strategy Policy 3A to development 'in other locations' in the manner of Policy 1(d) of the Secretary of State's Proposed Changes to RPG8, rather than by reference to 'exceptionally, in the Countryside'. We agree, not the least because there is some provision for development in or adjoining rural settlements in the Countryside under Strategy Policy 9 which might be regarded as being justified more generally than in 'exceptional' circumstances. There is also an allowance for some development under Strategy Policy 6 within Green Wedges, not part of the Countryside designation.

2.28 Criticism was made of the way that Rural Centres had been provided for in the Structure Plan. Some participants took the view that if they were to be identified, this should be done in a policy rather than in the explanatory memorandum. Others felt that it was more appropriate that Rural Centres be designated through local plans. Some doubts were expressed about the basis on which the centres named in paragraph 2.28 of the explanatory memorandum had been selected, an impression the Panel shares. For example, some of the named settlements do not appear to have the range of local services that we consider might qualify them as Rural Centres. Some have little or no employment provision beyond the limited employment to be found at, say, a village shop or public house. There is a cluster of named centres in Rutland close to Stamford in Lincolnshire, a town offering a much wider range of service and employment opportunities.

2.29 We consider that it would be more appropriate for the Structure Plan to provide a criteria-based policy relating to Rural Centres that could be used as the basis for local plan designations. In our view Rural Centres should contain or provide for some employment development other than that arising from the basic services and community uses provided for in the policy. A draft of such a policy is provided in the Panel Recommendations at the end of this chapter. The significance of Rural Centres for rural communities is also recognised by generic references in our re-drafted Strategy Policies 3A and 3B. If settlements are to be named in the explanatory memorandum as having potential for consideration as Rural Centres, it should be made clear that such a reference is subject to formal consideration at the local plan stage.

2.30 The emphasis given to development in transport corridors in the 1994 Structure Plan has been omitted from the Deposit Draft Structure Plan. Most participants conceded that unrestrained development in transport corridors would not result in the most sustainable pattern of development. However, many maintained that development at transport nodes still has a contribution to make towards an overall pattern of sustainable development. Furthermore, to abandon altogether the concept of transport choice corridors which had been the policy basis for some development permitted already, would be a confusing course of action prejudicial to development and infrastructure investment that has already taken place. We recognise that these points have some merit.

2.31 We note that reference is made in PPG3 to the search sequence for housing development focussing, after the re-use of previously developed land and buildings within urban areas and urban extensions, on nodes in good transport corridors. Policy 2 of the Draft RPG also makes reference to nodes in transport corridors. The Panel therefore considers that a similar reference could be inserted in Strategy Policy 3B.

2.32 As mentioned above, one of the clauses in Strategy Policy 3B refers to another 'aspirational' target, namely to secure at least 80% of built development in the Plan Area within and adjoining the main urban areas. The Panel has similar difficulties with this target as with the equivalent one for the CLPA. Again it is not clear precisely what the definition of 'development' is, including in this case whether the target is only intended to apply to new housing and employment or to all types of development. The term 'main urban areas' is not clearly defined although we take it to mean the CLPA together with the Main Towns named in Strategy Policy 3A. Without further clarification we are not convinced how the effective monitoring of performance against this target can be undertaken. Moreover, since the 55% target for development in the CLPA is not referred to in Strategy Policy 2, we cannot understand why attainment of the 80% target needs to be specified in the criteria of new Strategy Policy 3B. We consider that such a reference would be better made in the explanatory memorandum, together with a clear explanation in Chapter 10 of what the target means and how it is to be monitored.

Strategic Greenfield Sites

2.33 Strategic Greenfield Sites are seen in the Structure Plan as the most sustainable way of accommodating any development that may be justified when all previously developed land or building sources have been committed. The Panel agrees that if such sites are of sufficient scale and size and are well related to existing urban areas as urban extensions, then they would have the greatest prospect of securing sustainable development by facilitating the comprehensive planning of transport provision and by enabling existing and proposed infrastructure to be effectively integrated. Strategic Greenfield Sites were also seen as a means of providing for greater certainty in the planning of new development beyond the end of the Plan period.

2.34 However, Strategic Greenfield Sites were criticised in a number of ways. Participants were uncertain whether they were seen as strategic in terms of the Structure Plan itself, or merely a device that was mainly of use in local plan formulation. We agree that the inclusion of the word 'Strategic' in the policy title is not helpful, and should be deleted. Whilst the stated purpose of sites being put forward under the policy suggested that such sites should be of considerable size, paragraph 2.41 of the explanatory memorandum implies that they will vary in size relative to the urban areas they are extensions to. Some district authorities and development interests also considered that they would unreasonably constrain the allocation of land in local plans according to the most sustainable pattern of development.

2.35 The Panel has sympathy with these concerns. Strategy Policy 4 is intended to be read with Housing Policy 2 and Employment Policy 2. These put a greenfield 'cap' on housing development but not employment development. We recommend elsewhere in this report that Housing Policy 2 be deleted and that Employment Policy 2 be substantially amended. However, we consider that there would be some benefits from a generic policy relating to greenfield development in the Strategy Chapter of the Structure Plan, as this would help to ensure that any greenfield development that did take place was planned and executed in an integrated and sustainable manner.

2.36 Concern was expressed by the Council for the Protection of Rural England that Strategy Policy 4 might encourage the development of greenfield land in advance of previously developed land, contrary to the sequential approach in new Strategy Policy 3. There is in the Panel's view some merit in reinforcing the discipline already in the Structure Plan that consideration of greenfield land would only occur when it is due in the sequential approach. This should be done by an express reference, in the replacement policy we are recommending, to the programming of greenfield development in local plans to recognise the overall requirement for previously developed land to have been considered for development first.

2.37 We do not consider it possible or necessary for the size of the greenfield sites identified or the scale of development on them to be the subject of any quantitative threshold. Differing circumstances could occur between districts due to the composition and character of each area and the variable amount of greenfield development for which provision might need to be made. We also regard it as important that the requirement for greenfield development to be carried out according to the policy should apply in most, but not necessarily all cases. It may for example be appropriate exceptionally for two or more smaller greenfield sites to be identified in a local plan if those sites would better serve the objectives of sustainable development by integrating with existing development or facilities, or result in a less harmful impact on the environment.

2.38 In our view the promotion of mixed-use development advocated in paragraphs 49-51 of PPG3 can have regard to the contribution to mixed uses made by existing development in an area. On the other hand, where greenfield development sites are identified, the size of the site and the scale of development possible on it should be capable of facilitating mixed-use development. We have therefore sought to reflect these points in our suggested re-drafting of Strategy Policy 4 below.

Panel Recommendations

2.39 That Strategy Policies 2 and 3 in the Deposit Draft of the Structure Plan be deleted.

2.40 That new Strategy Policy 2 be inserted as follows:

STRATEGY POLICY 2: CENTRAL LEICESTERSHIRE POLICY AREA

In order to:

make optimum use of the available urban capacity for development in the existing built-up areas within the Leicester and Leicestershire Urban Area;

balance housing and employment development within the Central Leicestershire Policy Area; and secure integration between land use and transport policy objectives,

provision will be made within the Central Leicestershire Policy Area for 35,600 dwellings and for 376 hectares of employment land for the period 1996-2016.

2.41 That the explanatory memorandum be amended as follows:

(i) by further clarification in the glossary of the boundaries of the CLPA;

(ii) by review of paragraphs 2.4 to 2.6 of the explanatory memorandum and their relocation to enable them to serve as supporting text for new Strategy Policy 2;

(iii) by clarification of the 55% target for development within the CLPA, including specification of separate targets for housing and employment.

2.42 That new Strategy Policies 3A and 3B be inserted as follows:

STRATEGY POLICY 3A: A SEQUENTIAL APPROACH TOWARDS THE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT

Land for development will be allocated in development plans in the following priority order:

(a) previously developed land and buildings within or adjoining the central area of Leicester and the town centres of the Main Towns (Ashby, Coalville, Hinckley/Earl Shilton, Loughborough, Lutterworth, Market Harborough, Melton Mowbray, Shepshed and Oakham);

(b) previously developed land and buildings elsewhere within the Leicester and Leicestershire Urban Area and the Main Towns;

(c) other land within or adjoining the Leicester and Leicestershire Urban Area and the Main Towns, particularly where this involves the use of previously developed land;

(d) land within or adjoining Rural Centres, or other settlements which are or will be well served by public transport, particularly where this involves the use of previously developed land, and

(e) in other locations, subject where relevant to the considerations in Strategy Policies 6, 7 or 9.

STRATEGY POLICY 3B: SUITABILITY OF LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT

In considering the suitability of land within the context of Strategy Policy 3A, the following criteria will also be taken into account:

(i) the actual or potential accessibility of sites by non-car modes, including pedestrian, cycling and public transport links to central areas and district or local centres;

(ii) the capacity for development at transport nodes within good transport corridors;

(iii) the actual and potential capacity of existing public transport, utilities and social infrastructure to support further development;

(iv)the land-extensive characteristics of warehousing and distribution development, and the extent to it needs to have direct access to the strategic road or rail network;

(v)physical constraints on development, including ground contamination and stability and flood risk;

vi) the impact of development on natural resources and environmental and cultural assets;

vii) the cost of development, the economic viability of sites and the availability of public and private resources to bring forward land and buildings for development

viii) the need to secure a balance of land uses within the area, including by mixed use development; and

ix) the contribution that development could make towards the strengthening of a local community, supporting local services and meeting local needs, particularly within Rural Centres designated in local plans.

2.43 That the basis for monitoring the 80% target for development within and adjoining urban areas should clarified in the explanatory memorandum.

2.44 That a new Strategy Policy be inserted as follows:

NEW STRATEGY POLICY: RURAL CENTRES

Rural Centres may be designated in local plans, which serve a rural hinterland and contain all or most of the following functions:

(a) a primary school;

(b) a post office;

(c) a general store;

(d) a general medical practice;

(e) a pharmacy (if not within the general medical practice);

(f) additional employment to that provided by (a) to (e) above;

(g )a regular, six day a week return bus service:

2.45 That Strategy Policy 4 be replaced by the following:

STRATEGY POLICY 4: GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT

Where, after applying the sequential approach in Strategy Policy 3A and the criteria in Strategy Policy 3B it is necessary to consider new development on greenfield land, such land should generally be identified as urban extensions and allocated for development in local plans.

Any sites thus identified should, unless exceptional local circumstances dictate otherwise:

(a) be of significant size and scale;

(b) be of a form and character appropriate to the surroundings;

(c) incorporate good quality mixed use development including employment uses, or be capable of integration with existing development to the same end;

(d) incorporate open space to prescribed standards, and contribute to existing and proposed green networks;

(e) be large enough to enable significant developer contributions to be made towards transport and other infrastructure provision;

(f) be programmed for the implementation of the development at a stage in the local plan period consistent with the principle of previously developed land being developed first; and

(g) be capable of development in a phased sequence that enables new residents to have early access to local employment, public transport and other facilities

[ Chapter 1 | Panel Report Contents | Chapter 3 ]

Page Last Updated: 20 September 2001