Every few months a headline does the rounds that makes it sound as if thousands of homes are already a foregone conclusion (see https://www.facebook.com/share/1DAN7857we/?mibextid=wwXIfr). The latest figure being quoted is “4,200 homes awaiting decision”. It is understandable that residents look at that and think the battle is already lost.

It is not.

An application “awaiting decision” is exactly that. It is a request that must be tested against planning policy and material considerations. It is not a right to build, and it is not a planning permission.

I am writing this as an elected member of both Leicestershire County Council and Harborough District Council. That matters, because I can see the pressure points from both ends. The District is the decision-maker on most applications. The County is a statutory consultee on key issues such as highways, flood risk, education and other infrastructure. These are not abstract debates. They directly affect whether an application is sustainable and whether it can be defended when challenged.

Harborough District Council can, and does, refuse applications

It is important to say plainly that Harborough District Council can, and does, reject applications on strong planning grounds. Residents have every right to demand that the Council stands its ground where schemes are unacceptable in highways terms, where flood risk and drainage are not properly addressed, where infrastructure is not deliverable, where the impact on landscape and character is severe, or where proposals conflict with the development plan.

However, we also need to be realistic about the environment we are operating in. Many developers have deep pockets. When applications are refused, appeals can follow, and the Planning Inspectorate has the power to overturn the Council’s decision. Defending refusals requires time, technical evidence and legal input. That has a real cost, and ultimately it is borne by taxpayers. That is precisely why decision-making must be firm, but also disciplined and evidence-led. We have to be right, and we have to be able to demonstrate it.

We do have a plan, and neighbourhood plans matter

There is a persistent myth that Harborough has “no plan”. That is wrong.

The adopted Local Plan remains the starting point for decision-making until it is replaced. Made Neighbourhood Plans also have currency and carry weight. That is not a technicality; it is the legal framework that planning decisions are supposed to follow. Residents should not talk themselves into defeat by accepting the claim that policy has simply evaporated.

“Tilted balance” is not a trump card

You will often hear the phrase “tilted balance” used as if it is a magic spell that forces permission to be granted. It does not.

What residents are usually referring to is the national policy presumption in favour of sustainable development. Where a council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land, decision-making can tilt towards approval. That is exactly why speculative applications increase when supply is weak. Developers know it is easier to argue their case in those circumstances.

But this is the crucial point. The presumption is not a blank cheque. It still requires a judgement as to whether development is genuinely sustainable and whether harm outweighs benefit. Where highways impacts are unacceptable, where flood risk and drainage are not properly mitigated, where infrastructure is not credible or deliverable, or where the damage to character and countryside is disproportionate, refusal remains both lawful and proper.

We should not allow ourselves to be bulldozed by the casual deployment of a phrase.

Why the last Local Plan revision stalled, and why it matters now

The reason speculative pressure has increased is not hard to identify. The Local Plan update did not land. That weakened the Council’s ability to manage growth in an orderly, infrastructure-led way.

The previous iteration ran into serious difficulty and was criticised as “premature” and at risk of being found “unsound”, largely because it did not adequately set out how the necessary infrastructure would be funded and delivered. In plain English, it pointed to growth without properly demonstrating how the supporting roads, services and community provision would keep pace.

That is not a minor detail. Infrastructure is not an appendix. It is the difference between a plan that can be defended and a plan that invites a speculative free-for-all.

Drawing a defensive line, and putting developers on notice

If we are serious about regaining control, we should not simply deal with each proposal as it arrives and hope for the best. We should be proactive and publish a clear statement to developers setting out what Harborough will and will not accept, backed by policy and evidence and aligned with the County’s position on infrastructure.

This would not replace the Local Plan, and it would not bind a committee’s discretion. What it would do is establish clear expectations and reduce the scope for gamesmanship, particularly in an appeal environment. It would also help residents understand the tests we are applying, and it would strengthen our position by demonstrating consistency and reasonableness.

In practical terms, such a statement should make clear that proposals will not be supported where they fail to demonstrate, at the point of submission, that highways impacts are acceptable and properly mitigated, that flood risk and drainage are resolved with credible design and maintenance arrangements, and that infrastructure is genuinely deliverable with clear triggers, phasing and funding. It should also make clear that vague promises and “we’ll sort it later” will not be treated as sufficient, particularly where developments would lock in harm.

The statement should set expectations on design and place-making, the protection of landscape character and settlement identity, and the need to respect Neighbourhood Plan policies. It should also make plain that affordability and infrastructure will not be negotiated away late in the process through poorly evidenced viability claims. Where developers seek to depart from policy requirements, the burden should be firmly on them to justify it with transparent evidence.

This is not anti-development. It is pro-planning. It is how an authority behaves when it is determined not to be pushed around.

What the growth numbers mean in real life

The scale of what is now being discussed is not academic. Figures that have been cited in Local Plan discussions and draft work over recent years point to a planned housing total in the low eleven-thousands under the adopted plan, and a later draft position pushing towards the mid-fourteen-thousands. If you take the broad difference, you are looking at several thousand additional homes beyond what was previously planned.

What does this mean, in every day terms?

Using a standard working assumption of around 2.4 people per household, several thousand extra homes equate to many thousands more residents. In a district with high car ownership, that translates into thousands more vehicles using the same constrained road network. On health provision, if you apply a typical benchmark of roughly two thousand plus patients per full-time GP, then the implied additional population points to the equivalent of multiple additional full-time GPs, alongside nursing capacity, dentistry, school places, social care and wider infrastructure.

This is why it cannot be waved away as “government targets”. Targets do not build roads, they do not conjure GP appointments, and they do not prevent floodwater backing up into communities. Deliverable infrastructure is the test, and it is the test we must insist on.

Harborough is not Leicester’s overspill

Let me be direct about the strategic issue. I do not accept Harborough becoming an overspill location for Leicester, whether by accident, by drift, or by someone else’s convenience. Our towns and villages have their own character and their own needs. Growth must be shaped by local capacity, local character and credible infrastructure, not by a model that carpets green and arable land in concrete to satisfy someone else’s vision.

That is not anti-housing. It is pro-planning, pro-infrastructure, and pro-community.

What residents can do that actually helps

If residents feel strongly, the most effective action is not to despair. It is to engage properly.

Use the Harborough District Council planning portal to comment on applications and focus on clear planning grounds such as highways safety and capacity, flooding and drainage, school and health provision, landscape and heritage impact, ecology, and conflict with Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan policies. Volume matters, but substance matters more. A well-made planning point is far harder to ignore than a general expression of anger.

If you want to stay informed and coordinate with others, there is also a Facebook group called Save Our Green Spaces Harborough.

We are not powerless, and we are not finished. But we do need residents to make themselves known, and to do it in the right place, in the right way, and with the right arguments.