Harborough council will not defend its refusal of 85 homes south of Farndale View. Its own review said the flood reason could not stand. An inspector decides.
Harborough District Council has told the Planning Inspectorate it will not defend its own refusal of 85 homes on land south of Farndale View in Market Harborough.
Councillors on the planning committee turned the scheme down in April, against their officers’ advice, because part of the site floods. After the developer appealed, the council paid for an independent review of that decision. The review concluded that the refusal could not “be cogently defended”.
The decision not to contest the appeal was taken on 9 September by the council’s Director of Planning, David Atkinson. It is published in the council’s register of delegated decisions as record 2026/27 049. Councillors were consulted but did not take the decision, and it was not open to call-in by scrutiny.
The homes are not approved yet. A planning inspector still has to decide the appeal.
What was refused, and why
The application, reference 25/01085/OUT, is from Manor Oak Homes Ltd. It asks for outline permission for 85 homes, with access from Farndale View, plus affordable housing, public open space and a sustainable drainage system. Everything except the access would be settled later.
The planning committee refused it on 22 April 2026 on a single ground:
The site includes flood zones 3 & 2, and the landscaping scheme is not viable being underwater for part of the year, with flooding impacting that landscape area.
The developer appealed on 12 August.
What the council’s review found
The council’s head of development management commissioned the review from Beta Town Planning Ltd. Its author listened to the full committee recording. The review is dated 27 August and is published with the decision.
It describes the site like this:
- the land rises from 78.3m to 89.9m above sea level, higher towards the north
- 2.58 hectares in the north would be for housing, all of it in Flood Zone 1, the lowest risk, including the access road
- the other 9.98 hectares would be public open space, with drainage ponds, walking routes and play areas, in Flood Zones 2 and 3
- ground levels in the flood zones would not change
- neither the Environment Agency nor the Lead Local Flood Authority objected
On that basis the review says flood risk “cannot therefore be legitimately included as a negative attribute of this scheme”. The open space being underwater for part of the year is a real drawback, it says. But it only reduces the value of the open space as a benefit, and might put more pressure on other green spaces. It gives that “moderate” weight “at best”.
The review also says the refusal reason did not cite a single policy. It warns this “immediately places this decision at risk of a legal challenge/costs awards against the Council”.
Why the new national rules matter
The review leans heavily on the National Planning Policy Framework published in August 2026. That replaced the old “tilted balance” with a permanent presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Under its Policy S5, homes next to an existing settlement should be approved where there is an unmet need, “unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects”. The council accepts it cannot show a five-year supply of housing land, so the policy applies.
The review weighs the scheme like this:
| Harm or benefit | Weight given |
|---|---|
| Setting of Hill House, a Grade II listed building | Limited harm |
| Archaeology | Limited harm, can be dealt with by conditions |
| Loss of countryside and change of character | Limited harm |
| Loss of farmland, 25% of it best and most versatile | Limited to moderate harm |
| Impact on neighbours | Limited harm, can be conditioned |
| Pressure on other green spaces while the open space is flooded | Moderate harm |
| Market housing | Substantial benefit |
| Affordable housing | Substantial benefit |
| Public open space and new footpaths | Moderate benefit, reduced because of flooding |
| Wildlife and biodiversity gains | Moderate benefit |
| Energy-efficient buildings | Moderate benefit |
| Jobs and local spending | Limited benefit |
Its conclusion is blunt: “It is not considered that this decision can be cogently defended. There is a serious risk of costs and it would be sensible to minimise these costs.”
What defending it would have cost
The decision record puts a figure on it. Defending the appeal would cost the council an estimated £10,000 of its own. Another £10,000 could be awarded to the developer if the defence was found unreasonable. The record says that risk was higher because the committee had gone against its officers. Any of that spending would be an overspend on this year’s budget.
The council has made the opposite call on a bigger scheme. Two days later, on 11 September, the same director appointed a barrister, at an estimated £15,000 plus VAT, to defend the council at the public inquiry into up to 900 homes south of Uppingham Road, Bushby. In that case the council has said it would have refused the application.
What happens now
The appeal is being decided on written evidence, with no hearing. On the Planning Inspectorate’s own appeals service it is listed as appeal 6014505, with a status of “awaiting site visit”.
The window for residents to comment has closed. The Inspectorate’s page says the deadline was 1 October 2026. The council’s review had pointed out that third parties could still put their views even if the council stepped back.
The inspector is not bound by the council’s position. They must still weigh the scheme against the planning rules, including flooding.
What it means for you
- If you live near Farndale View, expect a decision from the inspector rather than from the council. Our planning page will carry it when it is published.
- If you commented on the appeal before 1 October, the inspector will have your comments. New comments can no longer be added online.
- If you are worried about flooding in the town, the county’s report on the September 2024 flood is a separate matter. It found the High Street flooded when the sewer outfalls into the Welland were submerged and the sewer under the street backed up. We covered it in our report on the town centre flood.
- If permission is granted, it will be outline only. The layout and the design of the 85 homes would need a further application.
Sources
- Harborough District Council, Written Record of Decision 2026/27 049, Farndale View: decision not to contest planning appeal, 9 September 2026, with the appended Beta Town Planning Ltd Decision Review of 27 August 2026, for the decision, its reasons, the costs, the site description, the refusal reason and the weighing of harms and benefits.
- Harborough District Council, Written Record of Decision 2026/27 050, appointment of a barrister for the appeal on 25/01587/OUT, land south of Uppingham Road, Bushby, 11 September 2026, for the £15,000 plus VAT estimate.
- Planning Inspectorate, comment on a planning appeal: appeal 6014505, land at Farndale View, checked 7 October 2026, for the procedure, status and comment deadline.
Have your say