Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Structure Plan 1996-2016

1. This technical report sets out and explains the assumptions underpinning the Proposed Modifications to the Structure Plan Housing Policies, which were placed on deposit for consultation in June 2002. The explanatory material in this report will form the basis of the Explanatory Memorandum which will accompany the housing policies in the Plan when it is adopted.

2. The report sets out:

3. The level of existing commitments and urban capacity data in the Deposit Draft Structure Plan was based on April 1998 data. The housing land availability information has been updated to a base date of April 2001 and the urban capacity assessment (2000) has been adjusted accordingly. This updated information has fed into the Proposed Modifications of the distribution of housing for the Plan Area.

4. The urban capacity data was subject to discussions with the House Builders Federation and the Council for the Protection of Rural England. A joint statement was presented to the EIP Panel which set out areas of agreement.

5. Housing land availability relates to the number of houses built and land committed for development for housing either by planning permission or as an allocation in a local plan. Table 1 sets out:

(1) The Local Plan allocation figure includes 1,200 dwellings for the site at the proposed new village in Melton (see paragraph 7 below and the attached Appendix 1)

(2) The Local Plan allocation figure includes 1,200 dwellings for the site at Grange Road, Hugglescote (see paragraph 7 below and the attached Appendix 1)

6. The completion figure comprises of dwellings built on large and small sites. It is a net figure taking account of conversions, changes of use and demolitions. Table 1 indicates that in the Plan Area a total of 16,600 dwellings have been built since 1996. This equates to 3,320 dwellings per year compared with the required rate of 3,150 to meet the Structure Plan provision total of 63,000.

7. In terms of large site housing commitments, at April 2001, 10,100 dwellings have planning permission or are under construction, and a further 13,100 are allocated in adopted or approved (e.g. deposit) Local Plans. An explanation of the approach adopted towards local plan allocations without planning permission, that is to treat them as commitments, is set out in Appendix 1 to this report.

8. Overall, dwelling completions and commitments total 39,800. This is 63% of the total provision figure of 63,000 for the Plan Area.

9. Government guidance – PPG 3 and associated documents – indicate that all Local Planning Authorities should undertake urban capacity studies.

10. Initially, an assessment of urban capacity was undertaken to a base date of 1997 to inform the review of the Structure Plan. This information was used to guide the preparation of the Consultation Draft and Deposit Draft Structure Plans.

11. A revised assessment was undertaken in 2000 to ensure a more rigorous, comprehensive and consistent approach. The revised methodology (available on request) gave detailed guidance on how to carry out the assessment. In particular:

12. For the purposes of the emerging Structure Plan urban capacity is considered to include three components:

13. The figure for Urban Capacity has changed from almost 21,000 in April 2000, to around 20,100 in April 2001. This is due to:

14. These consist of large sites (10 dwellings and over) expected to come forward for development during the Plan period and not identified as commitments at April 2001.

15. Small sites (i.e. sites and conversions/changes of use with a capacity of less than 10 dwellings) make a significant contribution to housing development in the Plan Area. An estimation of the expected contribution from small sites for the remaining part of the Plan period has been made based upon past rates and the future potential for such development. It is recognised that some sites may be outside the defined settlements defined by the urban capacity methodology.

16. Work has been undertaken to assess whether any additional capacity could be accommodated on existing commitments by increasing densities. In the absence of detailed assessment, for large committed sites without detailed planning permission (ie. Local Plan allocations and outline permissions) a set calculation for each site has been undertaken. For most Local Planning Authorities, this involves:

a) Identifying commitments at April 2001 without detailed planning permission. Some sites have been excluded from the assessment, for example, because detailed planning permission has been granted since April 2001, or where other constraints are known;

b) Applying a formula to calculate a proxy net density, based on a sample survey:

Below 0.4 hectares – 100% of site area

Over 0.4 hectares – 80% of site area.

c) Applying a density of 35 dwellings per hectare (the appropriate density for such sites set out in the Deposit Draft Structure Plan) to the proxy net site area;

d) Calculating the difference between the current site density and the increased density. The positive increases are totalled.

e) In certain cases, this figure has been discounted, after taking into account the views of the Local Planning Authority.

17. This process has indicated that for some sites there is scope to accommodate additional capacity. In some cases this is considerable. However, it is recognised that some of the assumed increased densities on such sites will not be implemented in practice because some of the sites may have gained detailed planning permission since April 2001 or be subject to constraints which limit site capacity.

18. In addition, it is considered that the urban capacity assessment may have underestimated urban capacity, for the following reasons:

19. In the light of these strengthening policy pressures, evidence of increased supply of urban land and concerns that the urban capacity assessment was 'conservative', it is considered appropriate to increase the urban capacity assessment by 5% of the total of the three components of urban capacity, well within the increase suggested by the Melton study. It is applied to all districts except Leicester, where a higher figure of 19,000 is already proposed, and Melton, where the urban capacity study findings are already built into the supply figures. This results in the urban capacity assessment increasing by 521 dwellings.

20. Table 2 sets out the aggregated data for the components of urban capacity. The three components of urban capacity total 20,700 dwellings. This is 33% of the total provision figure of 63,000 for the Plan Area.

1 Leicester City figure has additional urban capacity added in line with the Panel’s recommendations; because of this the 5% increase was not applied.

2 In Melton the original assessment has been superseded by the Urban Capacity Study commissioned by David Wilson Homes and undertaken by RPS Chapman-Warren; because of this the 5% increase was not applied.

21. Tables 3 and 4 indicate comparative figures for 1998 (published in the Housing Technical Paper which accompanied the Deposit Draft Plan) and 2001. The tables show:

Table 3 - Housing Land Supply 1998

Table 4 - Housing Land Supply 2001

22. The updated housing land availability and urban capacity data informed the distribution of housing between the Central Leicestershire Policy Area (CLPA) and the rest of the Plan Area and between the Local Plan Areas. Table 4 illustrates the combined position at April 2001 and Table 5 sets out the position for the CLPA and rest of the Plan Area. Overall, there has been a significant increase in the identified land available and potential urban capacity expected to be developed by 2016.

1 Falls completely within the Central Leicestershire Policy Area.

2 Falls completely outside the Central Leicestershire Policy Area.

23. A total of 63,000 dwellings is proposed for the Plan Area. This is consistent with that proposed in RPG 8 which proposes an annual rate of provision of 3,150 dwellings.

24. Changes to the components of housing land availability and urban capacity have allowed reconsideration of the distribution of housing provision for the Proposed Modifications. This second part of the Technical Paper discusses how the modifications to the housing distribution have been derived.

25. Tables 6 and 7 show comparative data for 1998 and 2001 in terms of the components for calculating the distribution of dwellings. Table 7 indicates that the updated position for housing supply at April 2001 is 60,450 dwellings as compared to the figure of 53,050 used in the Deposit Draft Structure Plan (Table 6). The increase in supply, of 7,400 dwellings, means that the additional greenfield site requirement for the Plan Area as a whole is 2,550 dwellings compared to 6,050 dwellings in the Deposit Draft Structure Plan. This is despite the overall increase from 59,100 to 63,000 dwellings.

26. Of particular importance is the increase to 19,000 dwellings for Leicester City as recommended by the EIP Panel Report. This means that Leicester City will now accommodate 4,000 dwellings more than proposed in the Deposit Draft Structure Plan. This is reflected in the updated urban capacity assessment.

27. The Proposed Modifications to the district distribution take account of the updated information in each district/unitary area and are set out in Table 7. Factors taken into account at the district level include:

28. Table 8 sets out the resulting breakdown for new greenfield development for the CLPA and the Rest of the Plan Area.

29. The revised distribution will require an increase in the proportion of housing to be provided in the remainder of the Plan period in the CLPA (53%, compared with the 42% of completions up to 2001). This is close to meeting the Panel’s requirement of 55%. This increase is mainly in Leicester itself. The amount of housing proposed for the remainder of the CLPA will be reduced over the remainder of the Plan period (18%, compared with 24% of completions up to 2001). There is a corresponding decrease in the amount to be provided outside the CLPA (47%, compared with 58% of completions up to 2001).

30. This represents a major change in emphasis consistent with the locational strategy of the Plan. More housing is allocated to Leicester itself, and the provision in the CLPA outside Leicester is reduced to avoid undermining urban regeneration and the challenging housing provision in Leicester.

31. Outside the CLPA, the retention of significant allocations recognises the equal priority given to the main towns and the Leicester and Leicestershire Urban Area. The level of commitments within and adjoining the main towns demonstrates the feasibility of accommodating housing development in a way that is compatible with the sequential approach.

Table 6 - Distribution of Housing: Deposit Draft Structure Plan (1998)

Table 7 - Distribution of Housing: Proposed Modifications (2002)

(numbers may not sum due to rounding, eg Blaby and Oadby and Wigston)

32. Housing Policy 1 has been modified to take account of the new distribution to districts and the CLPA, as set out in Table 7, above.

Table 8 - Distribution of Housing:- Greenfield: CLPA and Rest of Plan Area

33. Housing Policies 2 and 3 of the Deposit Draft have been combined and simplified into a new Housing Policy 2 to cover both the CLPA split and phasing of the Strategic Housing Sites. The number of dwellings is set out in Table 8, above. Because less land has to be allocated for Strategic Housing Sites than in the Deposit Draft, the development of all the sites is phased into the final five year period. This will allow more time for them to be designated in local plans, for site assembly and proper provision of infrastructure and community facilities. The Proposed Modification retains the use of land areas rather than number of dwellings in the policy. However, the net density is assumed to be about 40 dwellings per hectare, taking into account the modification to Housing Policy 5.

34. A new Housing Policy 3 is proposed as recommended in the EIP Panel Report. Current estimates for the Plan area indicate that about 47% of the housing provision could be on previously developed land or found through conversions. In the light of this, it is considered that that the policy should set an achievable and realistic target of 50% over the Structure Plan period.

35. Table 9 indicates an assessment of housing provision on previously developed land 1996-2016.

Table 9 - Assessment of Housing Provision on Previously Developed Land 1996-2016.

1 Small sites allowance is a yearly rate, multiplied by the remaining years of the plan. The exception is Melton, whose figure is part of the Urban Capacity survey undertaken by RPS Chapman-Warren.

2 Urban Capacity figures include 5% increase, except for Melton and Leicester City.

1. Throughout the process of preparing the Structure Plan the three Structure Plan Authorities (SPAs) have consistently treated local plan allocations which do not have planning consent as commitments. The rationale for this approach was explained in the SPAs’ Written Statement on Matter 4 (Housing) which was submitted to the EIP Panel. The matter was discussed at the EIP and covered in the Panel’s Report at paragraphs 4.19 to 4.26. The conclusions of the Panel are set out in paragraph 4.26, which are reproduced below.

"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." (Panel Report para 4.26)

2. Given the conclusions of the Panel it is considered appropriate for the SPAs to continue with the approach adopted to date. It is, however, also considered appropriate that clarification be provided regarding those sites allocated in local plans which the Panel described as being ‘not fully compatible with the Strategy’. The remainder of this appendix addresses this issue.

3. The reference to ‘local plan allocations which are judged not fully compatible with the Strategy’ is a reference to an analysis of the local plan allocations carried out by the SPAs prior to the EIP and referred to in paragraph 3.38 of the Written Statement on Matter 4 (Housing).

4. The analysis looked at the sites in relation to .the sequence of priority development locations in Strategy Policy 3A: Priority Locations for Development, proposed as a Pre-EIP Change. Sites comprising the category ‘not strictly consistent’ were those further down in the priority sequence. This assessment did not encompass any view of alternative sites that could be higher in the priority sequence as this is a matter for local plans. A judgement was also made on the sites’ consistency with the three priorities set out in Strategy Policy 3B: Assessing the Suitability of Land. These gave priority to sites using previously developed land, sites accessible by non-car modes, and development contributing to strengthening local communities, supporting local services and meeting local needs.

5. The analysis was crude, and did not look into the circumstances of each site in detail. In summary, it indicated that 13% of the dwelling capacity classified as local plan allocations at April 2000 were considered to be not strictly consistent with the Plan's strategy.

6. This 13%, equivalent to about 1,840 dwellings, relates to four particular local plan allocations; the new village (1,200 dwellings) in Melton district, the Castle Donington site in (200 dwellings) in North West Leicestershire, and sites at Great Glen and Kibworth (about 440 dwellings in total) in Harborough district.

7. In relation to the new village the reason for concluding that this site is ‘not strictly consistent with the Plan’s strategy’ was its locational relationship to the sequence of priority development locations in new Strategy Policy 3A, which was proposed as a Pre-EIP Change. Melton Mowbray. Because the site is separated from Melton Mowbray by a narrow gap of approximately 400 metres and therefore not directly adjoining Melton Mowbray it was considered to fall within the last category in the sequence of Strategy Policy 3A, that is "g) exceptionally, in the Countryside, provided for in Strategy Policy 9".

8. Taking into account the wider considerations set out below, however, the SPAs take the view that the new village is consistent with the Plan’s strategy and should be considered as a commitment in this light.

The initial selection of the site as a proposal within the Melton Local Plan resulted from a comprehensive assessment of development options in and around Melton Mowbray;

Subsequent analysis of the suitability and availability of sites within the urban areas of Melton (undertaken as part of the Borough’s urban capacity analysis) confirms that significant development is required to meet housing needs beyond the current settlement boundaries;

Whilst being physically separated from the edge of Melton Mowbray by a narrow strip of land, because of the proposed public transport links with Melton Mowbray, functionally, it can be considered as an urban extension and therefore in category "d) land adjoining the Leicester and Leicestershire Urban Area and the Main Towns";

The location of the site in close proximity to Melton means that it will benefit from this functional relationship with the town, its services and infrastructure. The proposed scale of the development can ensure that it is also capable of providing for the day to day needs of residents, whilst at the same time supporting the economy of the existing town;

In accordance with national and Structure Plan policy, the Local Plan promotes the development of the site for housing development but with a mixture of supporting employment and community uses.

9. In summary, whilst the analysis concluded that the site strictly fell in priority g), it could now be considered to fall within priority d) "land adjoining the Leicester and Leicestershire Urban Area and the Main Towns, particularly where this involves the use of previously developed land.

10. The Castle Donington site was considered to fall within the penultimate category, that is "f) within and adjoining other settlements outside the CLPA". This was the lowest category of the nine sites without planning consent in North West Leicestershire. All nine sites are however to be reconsidered through the local plan process. North West Leicestershire District Council is due to publish a Proposed Alteration to its Local Plan dealing with the phasing of these nine remaining sites. in the local plan which have yet to be granted planning permission (including the site at Castle Donington). This Alteration will address Government guidance which suggests that such sites should be phased over the remaining plan period to ensure that only land required to meet the district’s housing requirement is released for development. Factors such as the sites’ compatibility with the strategy of the Structure Plan are likely to be taken into account in deciding which site is released for development.

11. The two sites in Harborough were also considered to fall within the penultimate category, that is "f) within and adjoining other settlements outside the CLPA". A similar process is being undertaken for the Harborough District Local Plan, where there are four sites without planning consent, including those at Great Glen and Kibworth. Again, factors such as the sites’ compatibility with the strategy of the Structure Plan are likely to be taken into account in deciding which site is released for development.