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.

4.1 In this part of the report we consider the overall level and distribution of housing within the Plan area, including the role played by housing commitments, urban capacity and greenfield housing sites. We also address the provisions in the Plan in respect of affordable housing and densities.These matters are covered in the Structure Plan Housing Policies 1 to 5. Shortly before the start of the EIP the Structure Plan Authorities presented a preferred option for revising the housing distribution in the Plan based on an updated urban capacity assessment. Changes were also proposed to the way in which the Plan deals with the allocation and phasing of greenfield housing land.

Total quantum of housing proposed.

4.2 The Plan provides for a total of 59,100 dwellings over the period 1996-2016, equivalent to 2,955 dwellings per annum. The basis for this figure is explained in Technical Paper 1 accompanying the Deposit Draft Structure Plan. In brief, the assumptions incorporate:

a. a projection of population and households using the Chelmer model, based on demographic input data from the ONS/DETR 1992-based projections and local migration assumptions;

b. a calculation of dwelling requirements from the household projections by applying assumptions on vacancy rates, shared households and concealed households;

c. a further downward adjustment of 13% to allow for the fact that the more recent 1996-based household projections are 13% lower for the East Midland Region than the 1992-based projections.

4.3 A key issue discussed at the EIP was the consistency of this approach with the advice on housing requirements in the Draft RPG. The Draft RPG proposes a figure of 3,200 dwellings per annum for the Plan area over the period 2001-2021, compared with the Structure Plan figure of 2,955 dwellings per annum.

4.4 The role of RPG in determining the levels of housing provision in structure plans is set out in PPG3 (paragraph 7) and PPG11 (paragraph 5.19). These make it clear that once the annual rates of housing provision in RPG have been established and confirmed by the Secretary of State, following public examination at the regional level, they should be carried forward into structure plans and UDPs. There should be no need to reopen consideration of the housing strategy, including the annual rates of provision which have been considered in full within the RPG process.

4.5 PPG3 and PPG11 also indicate the approach which should be adopted where circumstances have changed significantly since the RPG was issued or where there is important new information to take into account. Neither of these applies here, since the Draft RPG has only recently (March 2001) appeared and is based on the most recent information available at the time.

4.6 The Panel agrees with the majority of participants who argued that the Structure Plan provision is not consistent with Draft RPG. The Structure Plan Authorities sought to argue that 59,100 is ‘broadly consistent’ in that it incorporates some ‘local’ adjustments e.g. for vacancies, concealed households and for lower migration 1991-96 in the baseline projections.

4.7 However, it seems to us that this is nothing more than post-hoc rationalisation, since the Deposit Draft Structure Plan figure was arrived at before the Draft RPG appeared. Indeed we heard no convincing arguments as to why the Structure Plan Authorities should have chosen to modify the distribution of housing in the light of new information on urban capacity but had not changed the overall level of provision taking into account the Draft RPG figure, even though it was made clear that the latter was fully supported by the Structure Plan Authorities at the RPG Public Examination.

4.8 The Draft RPG is, of course, not yet confirmed by the Secretary of State and some participants emphasised that representations had been made for different figures for the Plan area as part of the consultation process on the Secretary of State’s proposed changes. However, in our view Draft RPG currently contains the most appropriate figure for housing provision available. If changes do take place following consultation, these can be taken on board by the Structure Plan Authorities in proposing final modifications to the Structure Plan.

4.9 Representatives of developers and builders put forward arguments at the EIP for much higher levels of housing provision, using different assumptions based on more recent household projections, higher levels of international and inter-regional migration and different assumptions on vacancies and concealed households. These range from 74,500 to 85,500 over the Plan period. A particular issue raised was the level of international migration which appears to have increased in recent years.

4.10 However, the Panel takes the view that these were all matters considered fully at the Public Examination into the RPG. Indeed the RPG Panel and the Secretary of State accepted the arguments of the East Midlands Regional Local Government Association for lower international migration in Leicestershire. It would not be appropriate, therefore, for us to take a different view. Any changes to housing needs arising from changes in international migration or other demographic assumptions should be taken into account in the context of monitoring and review of the annual rates by the Regional Planning Body. Amongst other factors this will include new information emerging from the 2001 Census.This was the approach recommended by the RPG Panel and is one which we endorse.

4.11 Similarly, there was some discussion at the EIP of vacancy rates. The Deposit Draft Structure Plan is based on a reduction in vacancies from 3.8% to 3.2% within the Plan period. Although the RPG assumption is slightly higher, the net effect on the housing requirement appears to be relatively small.

4.12 The developers expressed doubts about the achievability of a lower level of vacancies and argued that the calculation of housing provision should only take into account lower vacancies when they are demonstrably happening. Otherwise, it was contended, there is a serious risk of under-provision. We do not accept such arguments. PPG3 and the Urban White Paper have set a national target of 3.0% vacancies by 2005. Empty homes strategies, aided and abetted by favourable changes in government policy such as simplification of the sale of houses, reduction in VAT on house improvements, and the general impact of urban renaissance should, in our view, enable lower vacancy rates to be achieved within the Plan period.

4.13 The Panel’s overall conclusion, therefore, is that there is no sound justification for departing from the level of housing provision proposed in Draft RPG.

4.14 However, there remains some uncertainty about what ‘consistency’ with RPG actually means in quantitative terms. Draft RPG runs from 2001 to 2021; the Draft Deposit Structure Plan from 1996 to 2016. Some participants argued that the current version of RPG8 should apply to the 1996-2001 period and the new Draft RPG to 2001-2016. The Structure Plan Authorities suggested that the annual rate of 3,200 dwellings in the new Draft RPG was relevant to the whole of the Structure Plan period because the technical basis on which the RPG figures were produced starts in 1996. The former approach produces a total of 65,500 dwellings in the period 1996-2016, the latter a total of 64,000.

4.15 The Panel favours adding an estimate of actual housing completions in the period 1996-2001 to the Draft RPG figure for 2001-2016. Housing construction between 1996 and 2000 averaged 3,350 dwellings per annum. Extrapolating this same figure over the 5 years 1996-2001 and adding this to 3,200 dwellings per annum for 2001-2016 produces a total of 64,750 dwellings over the Plan period. This is the figure we recommend should be adopted in the Structure Plan.

Distribution of Housing Within the Plan Area

4.16 The distribution of the total housing requirement of 59,100 dwellings between Leicester, Rutland and the seven Leicestershire Districts is set out in Housing Policy 1 of the Structure Plan. This has been influenced by:

(a) a ‘policy neutral’ (or trend-based) set of projections of housing requirements for each area;

(b) the level of existing commitments (land with planning permission or allocated in a local plan) and the expected contribution from urban capacity;

(c) the aim of balancing housing and employment in Central Leicestershire, the Districts and more specific locations (e.g. market towns)

(d) the locational strategy of the Plan;

(e) the desirability of achieving comprehensively planned strategic greenfield sites and the potential locations of such sites capable of development beyond the Plan period.

4.17 As a result of up-dating the urban capacity assessment, a preferred option for revising the distribution of dwellings within the Plan area was put forward by the Structure Plan Authorities. The new figures are set out in a revised version of Housing Policy 1 in the Structure Plan Authorities’ Supplementary Housing Report. Consequential changes to the greenfield housing requirement are set out in a revised version of Housing Policy 2 in the same document.

4.18 The key issues affecting the distribution of housing in the Plan area are:

(i) the role of housing commitments in determining the allocations;

(ii) the robustness of the urban capacity study and its use in determining residual greenfield requirements;

(iii) the allocation to the Central Leicestershire Policy Area (CLPA) relative to the rest of the Plan area;

(iv) the allocations to individual districts and the implications of any changes to the overall level of housing;

(v) the role of greenfield housing sites.

We examine each of these matters below.

Housing Commitments.

4.19 The Structure Plan takes housing commitments as ‘fixed’ in determining the distribution of dwellings. Commitments comprise housing completions 1996-2000, sites with planning permission and allocations in adopted or deposit local plans. Total commitments account for over 60% of the overall requirement of 59,100 dwellings.

4.20 Differences of view were expressed at the EIP about whether this was a proper approach. The majority of participants pointed to PPG3 guidance that land allocations without planning permission should be reviewed against sustainability criteria and the sequential approach. It was argued that commitments should not be allowed to drive the allocation of housing to the extent which it had in the Structure Plan.

4.21 Conversely, a number of the districts and other participants agreed with the approach of the Structure Plan Authorities and pointed to the practical difficulties which would arise if land allocated for housing in local plans was not to be regarded as committed. It would be difficult to resist applications from developers on allocated sites; there was a risk of costs being awarded against local planning authorities; and a danger that the certainty sought by users of the planning system would be undermined. Whilst it was inevitable that some land allocations may not fully meet the sustainable development criteria in the Plan, it was, nevertheless, argued that these should be regarded as commitments.

4.22 We cannot subscribe to the latter view. PPG3 is very clear about the need to review housing land allocations which do not have planning permission. In our view the proper approach for the Structure Plan ought to have been to determine the overall allocations to the districts having regard to the locational strategy and urban capacity and then assess the extent to which existing commitments meet these requirements.

4.23 However, some reassurance derives from an analysis of the local plan allocations undertaken by the Structure Plan Authorities. Of a total capacity of 13,696 dwellings, 20% have planning permission, 67% are regarded as consistent with the overall strategy of the Plan (including the sequential test in new Strategy Policy 3A) and 13% are considered to be not strictly consistent with the Plan’s strategy. The latter element comprises only 3% of the overall dwelling provision of 59,100 dwellings. We were also told that around 53% of local plan allocations were within the CLPA.

4.24 A further point made by the Structure Plan Authorities and other participants was that the general thrust of this Structure Plan is essentially similar to the strategy adopted in the 1994 Leicestershire Structure Plan, with an emphasis on urban concentration and development within the CLPA. It is therefore reasonable to expect land allocations in local plans deriving from the 1994 Structure Plan to be broadly compatible with this one.

4.25 This does not detract from the importance of district councils reviewing allocations in local plans as they are updated and rolled forward, to ensure that they are consistent with the sequential approach and the overall strategy of the Structure Plan, especially in the light of up-dated urban capacity assessments. One or two of the districts reported that such reviews had been, or were being, undertaken in current local plans.

4.26 Our overall conclusion is that whilst we cannot subscribe to the approach on commitments adopted in the Structure Plan, we have no firm evidence that this has so distorted the allocation of dwellings across the Plan area as to fundamentally undermine the achievement of the Plan’s strategy. However, we do feel that local plan allocations which are judged not fully compatible with the strategy should be reviewed as the local plans are updated and rolled forward. The Structure Plan Authorities agreed to include reference to the need for such reviews in the explanatory memorandum to Housing Policy 1. It was also agreed that Table 6.1 in the explanatory memorandum, which summarises housing provision by local authority area, should be amended so as to distinguish between true housing commitments, namely completions and sites with planning permission, and local plan allocations.

Urban Capacity.

4.27 The assessment of urban capacity is a further important element in determining the distribution of dwellings. As indicated above, the figures on urban capacity were revised shortly before the EIP started. This was based on an up-dated assessment undertaken by the district councils using a common methodology. This exercise was undertaken in advance of the DETR guidance on urban capacity assessments in Tapping the Potential. However the approach adopted by the authorities is regarded as broadly compatible with this guidance. Representatives of the Housebuilders Federation, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the district councils were involved in reviewing the results of the survey.

4.28 The approach has involved:

(a) assessing the additional housing capacity on large sites (over 10 dwellings) expected to come forward during the Plan period for defined settlements;

(b) an estimation of the expected contribution from small sites of less than 10 dwellings (including conversions and changes of use) based upon past rates and the future potential for such development;

(c) an assessment of the additional capacity on existing commitments by increasing net densities to an average of 35 dwellings per hectare.

Local planning authorities were asked to consider all possible opportunities and then ‘sieve out’ unsuitable and least likely sites. A criteria based assessment of the high, medium or low likelihood of development within the Plan period was adopted, with only high or medium sites included in the urban capacity total.

4.29 The results indicate a total urban capacity of 20,919 dwellings across the Plan area, comprising 1,635 from density increases, 9,954 small sites allowance and 9,330 additional urban capacity. This is equivalent to 35% of the total housing requirement of 59,100.

4.30 The Panel heard a number of criticisms of the outcome of this exercise, especially from developers. In particular it was argued that the assessment includes a large number of sites which have constraints, and sites classified as ‘sensitive’ for which limited information is available. It was suggested that the survey under-estimates the practical obstacles to development of many sites including servicing requirements, levels of contamination, difficulties in land assembly, the likelihood of local objections to development and so on.

4.31 Doubts were expressed about the estimates of realistic capacity within Leicester City Centre where demands from other land uses will be particularly significant. Other reservations were expressed about the basis for assuming density increases on committed sites and the lack of justification for the Structure Plan Authorities’ assumption that other sites are likely to come forward to replace any unsuitable sites identified in the survey. It was contended that the small sites allowance included sites in rural areas which should not be counted as part of urban capacity.

4.32 Some of these criticisms may have validity. However, it seems to us that, for a number of reasons, the assessment takes a fairly realistic view of urban capacity and one which is consistent with an approach designed to be illustrative of the pool of sites which might come forward during the Plan period rather than a precise estimate.

4.33 We note, firstly, that only sites with a ‘medium-high’ likelihood of development are included. A number of sites are discounted as unlikely to come forward because of major constraints. For example, we were told of 14 sites in Blaby with a capacity for 451 dwellings classified as having ‘low’ potential but with some prospect of being developed within the Plan period. Over a period of 15 years it seems to us that some of these constraints may be capable of being overcome.

4.34 Secondly, within the time frame of the Structure Plan it seems likely that other significant windfall sites may come forward which cannot be identified now. We were told that this has happened in the last 10 years in the case, for example, of the Towles factory at Loughborough and the Rolls Royce site at Rothley in the Charnwood Borough Council area.

4.35 Thirdly, the survey specifically excluded the scope for re-allocating surplus employment land. This may provide a contribution to meeting housing requirements. PPG3 requires all local planning authorities to review their non-housing allocations when reviewing their development plan and to consider whether some of this land might better be used for housing or mixed use developments.

4.36 Finally, it is not clear what account has been taken of the scope for residential sub-division and urban intensification which Tapping the Potential suggests may yield significant urban capacity in some areas. These factors appear to have been swept up into the small sites allowance, based on past trends. This may be a poor guide to the future potential from such sources.

4.37 We conclude, therefore, that the urban capacity study may be regarded as taking a somewhat conservative approach to assessing future potential. It represents a useful snapshot in time but has not involved a thorough and detailed study of each district. Some support for this view comes from a more recent and more detailed exercise in Melton BC which produced a somewhat higher urban capacity for the district than the assessment carried out by the Structure Plan Authorities.

4.38 It is evident from discussion at the EIP that the main difficulties arise not from the urban capacity study itself but from the way in which it is used, alongside commitments, to derive greenfield land allocations. In the Deposit Draft Structure Plan it was used to derive detailed allocations of new greenfield land by area for each district together with a phasing programme for strategic sites and smaller sites. In the proposed revised policies an allocation for smaller greenfield sites is included in Housing Policy 1 whilst the new Housing Policy 2 specifies that 49 hectares of greenfield housing land should be provided on Strategic Housing Sites in Charnwood, Harborough, Hinckley & Bosworth and Oadby & Wigston, with development phased over the period 2011-2016.

4.39 The urban capacity methodology is still in its relative infancy and the exercise carried out by the Structure Plan Authorities, though enterprising, is not, in our view, a very assured basis for allocating specific quantities of greenfield development to individual districts. There are too many variables to justify the use of the information in this way.

4.40 We agree with those participants who argue that details of the amount, type and location of greenfield land releases should be left to local plans, taking into account local urban capacity studies. If further testing of the present study in a local context were to show that the estimates were inaccurate or ill-founded, the allocations of greenfield land by hectares to each district could prove to be too low or too high. To include detailed policies which apply rigid allocations of greenfield land to districts is, in our view inappropriate, and usurps the function of local plans.

4.41 The Panel therefore favours using the urban capacity study to inform the broad distribution of housing provision and to identify indicative targets for development of housing on previously developed sites. At present the Structure Plan does not, in our view, fully conform with PPG3 (paragraph 23) which requires structure planning authorities to adopt their own land recycling targets, nor with Draft RPG (paragraph 4.69) which similarly looks to development plans to set county targets for higher levels of re-use of previously developed land.

4.42 At the request of the Panel, the Structure Plan Authorities produced assessments of brownfield/ greenfield housing, based on the urban capacity study and a split of the figures on completions/commitments. Of the total of 59,100 dwellings proposed in the plan, it is currently estimated that 49% will be on previously developed sites and 51% on greenfield. This is broadly in line with a 50% target for brownfield development contained in the monitoring indicators in Chapter 10 of the Structure Plan, though this refers to a 2021 time horizon and embraces both housing and employment development.

4.43 The regional target for housing on previously developed land and existing buildings in the Draft RPG is 60% by 2008. Although we are recommending an increase in the total Structure Plan housing provision to 64,750 we think the brownfield target for the Plan Area should not be less than the regional target. We note that in the Public Examination Draft version of RPG prepared by the East Midlands Regional Local Government Association (EMRLGA) the target figure for Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland was 50%. The Secretary of State’s proposed changes to Draft RPG do not contain county figures but the regional target is increased from 45% to 60%. It is important that the Plan area makes its full contribution towards meeting the higher regional target. Though reaching a target of 60% of new housing and building on previously developed land by 2008 is challenging, we are satisfied, based on the considerations set out in paragraphs 4.32-4.37 above, that it may be achievable. If the results of more detailed urban capacity studies at local level, together with monitoring, suggest that this is not the case the target should be revised at the next Structure Plan review.

4.44 In addition, we think it would be helpful for monitoring purposes if provisional targets for each district were incorporated in the explanatory memorandum of the Structure Plan.

Central Leicestershire Policy Area.

4.45 As we have indicated in Chapter 2, the Structure Plan sets an ‘aspirational’ target of 55% of new development within the Central Leicestershire Policy Area (CLPA). The target is based on the proportion of the Plan area’s population living within the CLPA. Several participants pointed out that the allocation of housing in the new Housing Policy 1 provides for only 47% of the total housing requirement to be met within the CLPA and argued for a higher allocation of housing. Others suggested that the capacity within and around Leicester is constrained and that other sustainable locations outside the CLPA such as Loughborough, Hinckley, Market Harborough, Lutterworth and areas close to East Midlands Airport should accomodate more of the growth in the future.

4.46 The Panel’s view is that much of the demand for housing within the Plan area is likely to be generated by Leicester and the surrounding urban areas. This is where much of the employment growth within the Plan period will take place and therefore where, subject to environmental and other constraints, it would be desirable to locate commensurate housing provision. A strategic target for development is of little value if it is not then reflected in the housing allocations in the Structure Plan. In this context we have already noted in Chapter 2 that between 1991 and 2000 only 45% of new housing in the Plan area was built within the CLPA and 55% outside. This reinforces the need for a step change in planning policy in the next 15 years in order to achieve the Plan’s objectives.

4.47 We therefore recommend that the additional 5,650 dwellings included in our proposed total of 64,750 for the Plan area should be allocated entirely to the CLPA and that there should be some further re-allocation of housing provision in order to bring the proportion within the CLPA up to 55%. Areas outside the CLPA will need to cater for self-generated growth and for some in-migration associated with employment development, but we are satisfied that in order to be consistent with the overall strategy, growth should be maximised within the CLPA. The total we recommend for the CLPA is therefore 35,600 dwellings, an increase of 7,575 on the figure in new Housing Policy 1.

District-level Allocations.

4.48 Our proposal that the total level of housing in the Plan area should be increased to 64,750 and that 55% of this should be located within the CLPA calls for a re-distribution of housing among the districts. Our suggested allocations to districts are set out in Table 1 overleaf, taking into account:

(i) the original Deposit Draft Structure Plan provision and the Strategic Planning Authorities preferred option set out in the Supplementary Housing Paper;

(ii) the ‘policy-neutral’ projections (recognising that these are not strictly policy-neutral in that they reflect the impact of past planning policies on migration etc);

(iii) the level of completions and sites with planning permission as at 2000;

(iv) the estimates of urban capacity from the urban capacity study;

(v) views expressed at the EIP by developers about the potential for further development in some districts and conversely by Local Planning Authorities and others about environmental and other constraints; and

(vi) the Panel’s proposal to add a further 7,575 dwellings to the CLPA allocation. Below we set out a summary of our rationale for the proposed allocations to each district.

4.49 Leicester: We propose an allocation increased from 16,200 to 19,000 on the basis that this is the most sustainable location and that additional urban capacity over the Plan period is most likely to arise in the city through unidentified windfalls, urban intensification, residential sub-division and the like. The impact of government policy on urban renaissance and local measures for regeneration is also expected to have its greatest effect in major urban areas like Leicester. Existing commitments together with identified urban capacity and local plan allocations already account for over 16,000 dwellings. We believe that it should be possible to find capacity for a further 3,000 dwellings over the 15 year Plan period.

Table 1 Distribution of Housing 1996-2016: Panel Recommendations

	DDSP Provision	Policy Neutral	Completions* & Planning Permissions	Urban Capacity	Local Plan Allocs.	SPAs’ Preferred Option.	Panel Recomm.	CLPA Allocation
Blaby	4,200	5,900	3,089	1,285	10	4,500	5,400	5,100
Charnwood	10,300	11,200	3,212	2,968	2,405	9,200	10,300	4,100
Harborough	8,150	6,400	3,795	2,061	896	7,350	8,150	3,500
Hinckley & Bosworth	6,200	6,900	2,313	2,781	1,122	6,550	6,900	1,350
Leicester	15,000	18,800	3,991	6,890	5,330	16,200	19,000	19,000
Melton	4,150	2,500	1,155	1,488	1,325	4,050	3,200
NW Leics.	6,350	4,100	3,071	2,160	2,003	7,350	7,050
Oadby & Wigston	2,400	1,300	551	361	151	1,550	2,400	2,400
Rutland	2,350	2,000	946	925	452	2,350	2,350
Plan Area Total	59,100	59,100	22,123	20,919	13,694	59,100	64,750	35,450

Source: Supplementary Housing Report, May 2001 and Panel Recommendations.

* Completions 1996 - 2000, Planning Permissions as at April 2000

4.50 Blaby: Our proposed allocation is 5,400 dwellings, closer to the original ‘policy neutral’4 position and some 900 dwellings greater than that proposed by the Structure Plan Authorities. Most of this allocation is within the CLPA reflecting the attractiveness of the western and southern side of the conurbation to new employment, with its excellent communications and concentration of existing businesses. Blaby has the longest urban ‘edge’ with the Leicester urban area of all the districts in the CLPA. There is scope, in our view, for comprehensively planned urban extensions, if they are required, in accordance with Strategy Policy 4. We recognise the importance of maintaining the separate identity of settlements in this part of the conurbation, and the physical contraints of the Rivers Soar and Sence and the Rothley Brook. Any major greenfield development may therefore need to be accompanied by the designation of further green wedges in order to preserve important tracts of open land and protect areas of environmental and biodiversity value.

4.51 Charnwood : We propose an increase in the housing allocation to 10,300, equal to the Draft Deposit Structure Plan level. Some 4,100 of these dwellings should be located in those parts of the District lying within the CLPA. New development needs to be carefully planned, taking into account physical and environmental constraints, particularly along the Soar Valley. Reference at the EIP to two reserve housing sites in the local plan (not included in the Structure Plan figure of commitments) - one of which is within the CLPA - confirms that some additional capacity exists. We note the concerns expressed by the Borough Council about constraints around Loughborough.5 However, Loughborough is the second largest urban centre within the Plan area after Leicester and is a location for significant new employment, including the Science Park. It is therefore in our view a particularly sustainable location for further housing development and we believe that a combination of maximising the capacity of urban sites, increased housing densities and, where necessary, sensitive and well designed greenfield development should enable the housing figure we propose to be achievable. Nottinghamshire County Council emphasised the importance of maintaining a balance between employment and housing provision in Loughborough in order to deter long distance commuting across the regional boundary and reduce the pressure for housing outside the District. We agree with this and have taken it into account in maintaining the housing allocation outside the CLPA at the level preferred by the Structure Plan Authorities.

4.52 Harborough: Our allocation of 8,150 is an increase of 800 on the Structure Plan Authorities’ preferred option, bringing the District’s allocation back to the Deposit Draft Structure Plan figure. Some 3,500 of these dwellings should be within the CLPA. This would, where necessary, provide greater scope for a comprehensively planned urban extension on the east side of the Leicester urban area, possibly in association with parallel development in adjoining Oadby and Wigston.

4.53 Hinckley & Bosworth: The proposed allocation of 6,900 is equivalent to the ‘policy neutral’ figure and represents a small increase on the Structure Plan Authorities’ preferred option. Housing completions and planning permissions plus urban capacity and local plan allocations already account for a growth of 6,200 dwellings and we envisage no difficulties in accommodating this small addition over the Plan period. A relatively small part of the District lies within the CLPA but there is scope for some modest further sustainable development in the Markfield, Ratby, Groby and Desford areas, given the accessibility of these locations to employment on the west side of the conurbation.

4.54 Melton: We propose a significant reduction in the Structure Plan Authorities’ preferred allocation, from 4,050 to 3,200 dwellings, in line with our recommendation to re-allocate future housing growth to areas within the CLPA. The whole of Melton District lies outside the CLPA and whilst the town of Melton is identified in the Structure Plan as a sustainable location in its own right there is clearly a need for employment and housing growth to be kept in balance in order to avoid long distance commuting. The scale of housing growth proposed in the Structure Plan, which is considerably higher than the policy neutral position, is linked with a new village on the former Melton airfield to the south of the town, together with a proposed southern and western bypass of the town. It is not appropriate for the Panel to express a view on the merits or otherwise of this proposal which is a local planning matter. We simply note that most of this is a greenfield site which we were told is included in the 13% category of commitments referred to in paragraph 4.23 above as not strictly complying with the locational strategy of the Structure Plan. At the time of the EIP a planning application for the new village was subject to a section 14 ‘holding’ direction by the Secretary of State.

4.55 North West Leicestershire: We propose an allocation of 7,050 dwellings, a modest reduction of 300 dwellings compared with the Structure Plan Authorities’ preferred allocation, but still significantly above the policy neutral figure of 4100. The whole of the District is outside the CLPA but there are sustainable locations for future development at Ashby, Coalville and some of the associated smaller mining communities where continued regeneration is taking place as part of the North West Leicestershire Coalfield Priority Area. Further development and regeneration may also help to underpin the authorities’ aspirations to re-open the Ivanhoe rail link, to which we refer in Chapter 7. Completions and planning permissions, together with identified urban capacity and local plan allocations already account for over 7,000 dwellings and it seems to us that further opportunities for sustainable development on previously developed sites may well emerge during the Plan period.

4.56 Oadby & Wigston: Our proposed allocation of 2,400 dwellings brings the housing provision back to the Deposit Draft Structure Plan level. Oadby and Wigston lies entirely within the CLPA and performs well against the sequential test in the new Strategy Policies 3A and 3B. We accept that this is a relatively compact district with a limited amount of open land remaining. We note, however, that the urban capacity assessment for Oadby and Wigston has adopted a fairly ‘conservative’ approach, reflecting the predominantly residential character of the area. It is possible that further scope for development within the urban area may emerge through urban intensification, residential sub-division and windfall sites. Insofar as greenfield development proves necessary, we consider that our increased housing allocation will provide greater scope for a viable greenfield mixed use extension to the urban area, especially if linked with the allocation we propose in the neighbouring Harborough District. We recognise the need to retain and preserve the character of open land between and beyond the built up areas on this side of the Leicester urban area. As on the western and southern sides of the conurbation, further major development may therefore need to be planned in association with extensions to existing or designation of new green wedges.

4.57 Rutland: We propose no change to the Structure Plan Authorities’ preferred allocation of 2,350 dwellings which is the same as in the Deposit Draft Structure Plan. Rutland is predominantly rural in character and most new development will be concentrated at Oakham and Uppingham. Housing commitments, together with urban capacity and local plan allocations already account for practically the whole of the 2,350 dwellings provision so the need for further allocations during the Plan period is limited.

Greenfield Housing Sites.

4.58 As indicated above, new Housing Policy 2 proposes that ‘no more than’ 49 hectares of new greenfield housing land should be provided on Strategic Housing Sites in Charnwood, Harborough, Hinckley & Bosworth and Oadby & Wigston. For the reasons set out in paragraphs 4.37-4.40 above we regard this level of precision in a Structure Plan to be both inappropriate and dangerous in that it ties the hands of district councils in preparing their local plans to figures which may prove to be too high or too low.

4.59 In our view, the setting of a total level of dwelling provision (split where appropriate between the CLPA and the rest of Plan area), together with the application of the sequential test in Strategic Policies 3A and 3B (as amended by the Panel) provides the necessary degree of strategic control to ensure that brownfield sites are allocated before greenfield sites and that new greenfield development is located in the most sustainable places. It is then a matter for local plans to allocate sites and determine the amount of greenfield land which needs to be released. We therefore recommend that new Housing Policy 2 should be deleted from the Structure Plan and, for the same reasons, that the column headed ‘Smaller Greenfield sites’ in new Housing Policy 1 should be omitted.

4.60 However, as outlined in Chapter 2, we can see advantage in the Structure Plan containing broad strategic guidance on the criteria which should govern new greenfield development. This should recognise that most greenfield housing should be located on sites which allow for mixed use, balanced development in association with employment, services and community facilities.

4.61 This will usually mean sites which are large enough to accommodate the necessary range of mixed uses, linked where appropriate with the strategic employment sites referred to in Chapter 5. It should also recognise that balanced development may be achievable by integrating new greenfield housing with existing development in the adjoining urban area. In Chapter 2 we have proposed a revised version of Strategy Policy 4 to meet this requirement.

Other Issues.

4.62 Two further issues in relation to the scale and distribution of housing provision arose during the discussion of the topic at the EIP. Firstly, developers suggested that the introduction to Housing Policy 1 should refer to the ‘construction of dwellings during the Plan period’ rather than simply making ‘provision for’ such dwellings. Reference to construction is considered to be clearer and more precise and makes it evident that the Plan requires the housing figure to be met in full.

4.63 We prefer the term ‘provision’. This is the terminology used in PPG12, paragraph 3.8 in setting out the role of structure plans in relation to housing: ‘indicating the scale of provision to be made in the area as a whole, including, for example, figures for housing in each district’. It is also a broader term than construction, in that it embraces conversion of existing residential and non-residential property into dwellings. However, we do consider that reference to ‘up to…. dwellings’ is unnecessary in that it conveys that the figure is an absolute limit not to be exceeded, but that there is no minimum. In the context of plan, monitor and manage, the housing provision figure is a level that should be provided for in local plans, as and until new information or a revision of RPG call for it to be reviewed.

4.64 Secondly, concern was expressed about the use of flexibility allowances. The Structure Plan (paragraph 6.11) says that in allocating land in local plans arbitary additional allowances for "flexibility" or for any other purpose should not be made. Developers objected strongly to this, contending that the purpose of flexibility allowances is to ensure that the housing figure is met in full. Attention was drawn to a number of Local Plan Inspectors’ Reports supporting an 8-10% flexibility allowance or the over-allocation of sites to about this level, in order to provide for slippage. However, these appear mainly to refer to Local Plan Inquiries which pre-date PPG3. More recently there are instances of Local Plan Inspectors rejecting flexibility allowances.

4.65 Guidance on this matter is contained in PPG3 (paragraph 30) which advises local plans to ‘seek only to identify sufficient land to meet the housing requirement set as a result of the RPG and strategic planning processes…. They should not extend the search further than required to provide sufficient capacity to meet the agreed housing requirement’. This suggests that the Structure Plan Authorities are right to counsel against the use of flexibility allowances. Paragraph 6.11 of the Structure Plan does, however, make it clear that local planning authorities should allow for sites subject to constraints which mean they may not be completed within the Plan period and should indicate which sites have been identified as an alternative to ensure that Structure Plan requirements will be met. This is consistent with PPG3 and should, in our view, suffice to meet housebuilders’ concerns. We therefore think the reference to flexibility allowances in paragraph 6.11 should remain.

Affordable Housing

4.66 Housing Policy 4 in the Structure Plan says that provision will be sought for affordable housing for households unable to purchase or rent adequate housing on the open market. It states that the minimum requirement for affordable housing should be 30% for Leicester and 26% in the remainder of the Plan Area, though this may vary according to local circumstances.

4.67 Three main issues arose at the EIP in relation to this policy:

- the proper role of the Structure Plan in respect of affordable housing,

- the appropriateness of the range of figures included in the policy, and

- the need for guidance on affordable housing in rural areas.

4.68 The majority of participants felt that Housing Policy 4 is too detailed for a Structure Plan. It was contended that it was inappropriate for the Plan to set minimum levels of affordable housing and that this was best left to local plans. PPG3 (paragraphs 12 and 14-15) gives no clear remit for a Structure Plan to set either minimum requirements or targets for affordable housing, whilst Circular 6/98, (paragraphs 5-6) explicitly says that this is a local matter. On this basis it is evident that Housing Policy 4 goes beyond current guidance.

4.69 However, we agree with those participants who regarded it as important for the Structure Plan to contain advice on the factors which district councils should take into account in preparing affordable housing policies in local plans, in line with PPG3. A proposed form of wording, drawn from suggestions made at the EIP, is set out in our recommendations below.

4.70 We also see some value in the supporting text containing indicative figures for affordable housing, to act as a bridge between RPG and local plans and for monitoring purposes. The question is whether these should be expressed as absolute figures or as percentages, as in Housing Policy 4.

4.71 Draft RPG (Policy 32) says that the appropriate indicator for monitoring the provision of affordable housing at the regional level, based upon the ‘net stock method’ is around 3,400 dwellings per annum. This is a figure which it says should be reviewed in the light of the cumulative result of local need assessments. The estimate of 3,400 is equivalent to 25% of the total regional housing requirement. The Draft RPG does not contain any break down of this figure to structure plan level.

4.72 Information is not available to produce an equivalent absolute figure for the Plan area. Pending further analysis, use of a percentage figure seems the most practical approach. Recent local housing needs surveys in Leicester, Melton, Blaby and Hinckley & Bosworth have fairly consistently identified a need for 30% of new housing to be affordable, though in Oadby & Wigston the figure is 25%.

4.73 We suggest that the appropriate figure for affordable housing to include in the explanatory memorandum and in the monitoring indicators in Chapter 10 of the Structure Plan is 30% of the new dwellings to be provided in the Plan area as a whole. It should be made clear, however, that this is a figure which will need to vary according to local circumstances. Once a complete picture of affordable housing has been derived from local housing needs surveys the indicator should be reviewed.

4.74 The explanatory memorandum should also outline the main guidance on affordable housing in RPG, PPG3, Circular 6/98 and the Rural White Paper and the measures available to help deliver such housing, including rural exceptions policies. The rural dimension should be given greater prominence by highlighting the particular problems faced by low income households in rural areas due to the low availability of affordable housing stock in relatively affluent locations with high property prices. We have proposed an additional reference in Strategy Policy 9 to recognise that affordable housing may sometimes need to be an exception to the normal restrictions on development in areas adjoining rural settlements designated as Countryside.

Housing Densities

4.75 Housing Policy 5 in the Structure Plan sets down minimum net densities in different parts of the Plan area, ranging from 50 dwellings per hectare within and adjoining Leicester City centre down to 25 in ‘other locations’. The explanatory memorandum recognises the need for a range of densities within particular sites to reflect a mix of housing types and sizes and for lower density development on some smaller sites. The Structure Plan Authorities accepted that clarification is required to indicate that the range of densities in Housing Policy 5 applies only to large sites of 10 or more dwellings.

4.76 A number of participants at the EIP felt that Housing Policy 5 goes beyond the remit for Structure Plans set out in PPG12 and is over-detailed and prescriptive. It was argued that PPG3 advocates a rather less prescriptive approach, using terms such as ‘avoid developments which make more inefficient use of land’; ‘encourage housing developments which makes more efficient use of land’ and ‘seek greater intensity of development at places with good public transport accessibility’.

4.77 We agree that, as drafted, this policy does appear unduly prescriptive and we also concur with those who argued that density has to be seen within the wider context of design quality and the local surroundings within which development takes place. We, think that these design factors should be given greater prominence within the policy and that this could be achieved by re-titling the policy as ‘Housing Density and Design’ and putting the design principles first.

4.78 Nonetheless, we consider that the aim of Housing Policy 5 is broadly consistent with national policy guidance. The thrust of what PPG3 is seeking to achieve is clear enough and there is nothing to suggest that a Structure Plan should not give general guidance on minimum net densities to be sought in new housing developments. In this context we note that the Government Office for the East Midlands made no objection to Housing Policy 5. We note also that there is no specific guidance on densities within the Draft RPG, so there would be some merit in the Structure Plan providing such guidance.

4.79 We therefore conclude that the net density figures should be retained in the policy. Taking on board points made during the EIP, however, we recommend that:

(a) reference in the policy to densities of 25 dwellings per hectare for ‘other locations’ should be deleted since this is contrary to the 30 dwellings per hectare minimum advocated in PPG3. Sites in rural locations which may, exceptionally, justify lower densities than 30 dwellings per hectare will often be below the threshold to which the policy applies;

(b) reference to the site threshold to which the policy applies should be expressed as 0.3 hectares rather than 10 dwellings to avoid the risk of schemes being put forward which are just below the threshold irrespective of the size of site;

(c) the higher density of 50 dwellings per hectare. should apply to sites within and adjoining Loughborough town centre as well as Leicester;

(d) the wording in criterion (c) should be amended to avoid ambiguity in relation to ‘current standards’ and refer instead to ‘good design principles’;

(e) the reference in paragraph 6.33 of the explanatory memorandum to high densities in locations that offer, or could offer, a realistic choice of transport and are accessible to other facilities and services should be incorporated within the body of the policy.

(f) the explanatory memorandum should outline the basis for the calculation of net densities, drawing upon Annex C of PPG3.

A revised form of wording is suggested in the Panel recommendations below.

Panel Recommendations.

4.80 That Housing Policy 1 be amended as follows:

HOUSING POLICY 1: THE QUANTITY OF HOUSING LAND

Provision will be made for 64,750 dwellings within the Plan Area of which 35,450 shall be located in the Central Leicestershire Policy Area. Provision by district and unitary authority areas including elements for the Central Leicestershire Policy Area will be as follows:

*Local Authority* *Area.*	*Central* *Leicestershire.*	*Rest of Plan Area*	*Total*
*Blaby*	*5,100*	*300*	*5,400*
*Charnwood*	*4,100*	*6,200*	*10,300*
*Harborough*	*3,500*	*4,650*	*8,150*
*Hinckley &Bosworth*	*1,350*	*5,550*	*6,900*
*Leicester*	*19,000*		*19,000*
*Melton*		*3,200*	*3,200*
*North West Leics.*		*7,050*	*7,050*
*Oadby & Wigston*	*2,400*		*2,400*
*Rutland*		*2,350*	*2,350*
*Total Plan Area*	*35,450*	*29,300*	*64,750*

4.81 That the explanatory memorandum to Housing Policy 1 be amended as follows:

(i) by inclusion of reference to the need for a review of local plan housing allocations;

(ii) by changes to Table 6.1 so as to distinguish between housing completions/commitments (land with planning permission) and local plan allocations.

4.82 That Housing Policies 2 and 3 relating to the allocation and phasing of greenfield land should be deleted, and a new policy introduced into the Structure Plan setting a target of 60% by 2008 for the proportion of new housing provision on previously developed land and existing buildings. This should be accompanied by provisional indicative targets for each district in the explanatory memorandum.

4.83 That Housing Policy 4 be amended as follows:

HOUSING POLICY 4: AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

Provision will be made in local plans for affordable housing for households unable to purchase or rent adequate housing on the open market, to a level identified as a result of local needs surveys and assessments. Policies and proposals to provide for the identified need will be designed to reflect variations in local circumstances in both urban and rural areas, using the full range of measures available, including:

- Specifying the proportion of affordable housing to be sought in housing developments of 25 or more dwellings, or residential sites of 1.0 hectares or more;

- Identifying rural settlements of 3,000 population or fewer where different site thresholds may apply; and

- Specifying the circumstances in which rural ‘exceptions’ policies will apply.

4.84 That the explanatory memorandum to Housing Policy 4 should contain an indicative target for affordable housing for the Plan area, for monitoring purposes. Pending further information on the absolute level of affordable housing required, this should be expressed as a broad proportion (30%) of the additional housing provision over the plan period. The explanatory memorandum should also refer to national and regional guidance on affordable housing and highlight the special problems facing low income households in rural areas.

4.85 That Housing Policy 5 be amended as follows:

HOUSING POLICY 5: DENSITY AND DESIGN

Housing Development should be of a type and design to achieve as high a net density as possible, taking account of:

(a) proximity and accessibility to centres;

(b) the provision of a mix of housing types to establish socially mixed communities;

(c) good principles of design and layout which make the most economical use of land and respect the local context;

(d) green space and landscaping requirements.

Subject to the considerations set out above, housing developments on sites of 0.3 hectares or more should attain the following net densities:

Within and adjoining the centres of Leicester and Loughborough	*A minimum of 50 dwellings per hectare*
Within other main town centres, local centres and other locations well served by public transport and accessible to services and facilities	*A minimum of 40 dwellings per hectare*
Other locations	*A minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare*

4.86 That the explanatory memorandum to Housing Policy 5 should make it clear that the net densities in the above table should be calculated by reference to the guidance in Annex C of PPG3.

[ Chapter 3 | Panel Report Contents | Chapter 5 ]

Page Last Updated: 20 September 2001