Bloor Homes Ltd Application Ref: 16/00874/REM Location

Planning Committee Report

Applicant: Bloor Homes Ltd Application Ref: 16/00874/REM Location: Land at Uppingham Road, Bushby Proposal: Development of up to 275 dwellings and up to 500sqm of retail use (Class A1) with associated infrastructure, including means of access, open space and landscaping (reserved matters of 14/01088/OUT) Application Validated: 28/06/2016 Target Date: 27/09/2016 (extension of time agreed) Site Visit Date: Various Case Officer: Susan Garbutt

Recommendation

Planning Permission is APPROVED, for the reasons set out in the report and subject to the recommended conditions set out in Section 8 of this report.

1. Site & Surroundings

1.1 The application Site (hereafter referred to as the ‘Site’) is located on the eastern edge of Bushby (see Figure 1). The site currently contains Charity Farm to the south, accessed from Uppingham Road (a collection of two dwellings and associated farm buildings) and further land to the north which is in agricultural use.

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

1.2 The site is approximately 15.8 ha and is irregular in shape. The southern parcel of the site abuts the cricket pitch/playing field and existing dwellings off Wadkins Way to the west, Uppingham Road to the south, and open countryside to the east and north. The northern parcel extends the site westwards. The northern parcel abuts the discussed railway line to the south, the under-construction Jelson’s development to the west (accessed off Pulford Drive), and open countryside to the north and east. The northern boundary is the line of the watercourse (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Aerial view of the site

1.3 The application site drops away significantly from the A47 (approx. 128m AOD) to the northern boundary of the site (approx. 92m AOD). There are a number of trees and hedgerows along the site boundaries and the site is bisected by hedgerows in two locations (see Figure 2). The southern section of the site does feature some limited ridge and furrow. The southern boundary of the northern section of the site is formed by a disused railway line and a footpath bisects the northern section of the site (see Figure 1).

2. Site History

2.1 The Site has the following recent planning history:  14/01088/OUT Development of up to 275 dwellings and up to 500 sq.m of retail use (Class A1) with associated infrastructure, including means of access, open space and landscaping (Revised scheme of Outline Planning Application 13/01306/OUT) APPROVED 4/6/15 with S106 dated 4/6/15 (Access considered only) The outline PP included the following S106 obligations:  Affordable housing 36% (social/affordable rented and intermediate)

 Community facilities contribution  Health contribution  Police contribution  Education contribution  Footpath contribution  Open Space provision  Open Space commuted maintenance sum  Serviced Retail Land  Travel Pack for new residents  Travel Plan  Traffic signal contribution  Bus stop contribution  Monitoring fees.

 13/01306/OUT Erection of up to 275 dwellings and up to 500m2 of retail use (Use Class A1) with associated infrastructure, access, open space and landscaping (means of access to be considered only) REFUSED 22/1/14 2.2 The red line site area of the following application included some of the Site of the current application:  11/00003/OUT Residential development for up to 150 dwellings together with access, drainage, services and open space REFUSED 9/3/11

3. The Application Submission a) Summary of Proposals

3.1 The proposal seeks reserved matters approval for 275 dwellings (including 40% affordable units), retail unit (500sqm Class A1) with associated infrastructure, open space and landscaping (reserved matters of 14/01088/OUT). Means of access was approved at outline stage, so this application seeks approval for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.

3.2 The mix of unit types proposed are as follows;  Private Housing – 6 no. 2 bed, 50 no. 3 no. bed, 120 no. 4 bed.  Affordable rent - 24 no. 1 bed, 27 no. 2 bed, 8 no. 3 bed (including 6 no. 2 bed bungalows)  Intermediate - 32 no. 2 bed, 8 no. 3 bed. 3.3 The outline approval secured a S106 which included a clause enabling an element of off-site open space provision on adjacent land to the north; the ‘green land’ referred to in the S106. An application has been submitted for that open space provision (reference 17/01117/FUL). This current application, and that application on the ‘green land’ meet the requirements for open space provision as required by the S106. Further details are provided later in this report. b) Documents submitted i. Plans 3.4 The application has been accompanied by the following plans –  Site Plan colour 003J  Proposed Layout 003J  Proposed Layout South Site 002N  Proposed Layout North Site 001Q  Site Plan with Affordable 002N

 North Layout with Affordable 001Q  South Layout with Affordable 002N  S38 General Arrangement (Sheets 1-4: 111, 112, 113, 114)  Landscape Proposal Key Plan (6632-L-100C) 27/6/16  Landscape Proposals (15 Plans 101 to 1015 Rev C) 27/6/16  Street Scene Elevations PD-001  House Type Plans  Garage type plans  Proposed Retail Store Plans and Elevations 40521/003  Views (Retail store artist view) 40521/005A  Proposed Site Plan (retail store only) 40521/004B  Means of Enclosure Plans (MI104-MAT-008B, MI104-MOE-007A)  Materials (MI104-MAT-010B, 009B)  Attenuation Basin 4 (193)  Attenuation Basin 3 (192)  Attenuation Basin 2 (191)  Attenuation Basin 1 (190)  External Levels (Sheet1 107D, Sheet 2 108D, Sheet 3 109C, Sheet 4 110D, Sheet 5 121B, Sheet 6 122B, Sheet 7 123B, Sheet 8 124B) 28/6/16  Composite Plan rec 13/6/16  Phasing Plan rec 13/6/16  Public Open Space summary (DE071_RM_101 A) rec 27/6/16. ii. Supporting Statements 3.5 The application has been accompanied by the following supporting statements –  Application Form  Covering Letter 24/5/16  Compliance Statement May 2016  Letter from RSK re Updated Ecology Surveys 2015 dated 23/6/16 c) Amended Plans and/or Additional Supporting Statements/Documents

3.6 Since the original plans were submitted, the applicant has worked with the case officer to revise the scheme on light of officer comments, issues raised from the public consultation, and consultation response from statutory consultees. A Tree Inspection Report on tree T40 was requested following public comments, and this was submitted by the applicant In August 2016. The applicant also submitted a letter dated 16 August 2016 which sought to answer various queries raised in the consultation responses received to that date.

3.7 As a result of these discussions, the applicant submitted revised plans in July 2017 and these were consulted upon for 21 days. The revised plans included the following changes to the proposal: On the southern part of the site (off Uppingham Road):  revised design of the retail unit so it has an active frontage to Uppingham Road and the access road,  clarification of what elements of the farm are to be removed/retained  revised layout of the western boundary to provide a green buffer between existing and proposed dwellings,  New dwellings moved from within the root protection area of retained tree T40  Soften the edge of the development which fronts onto open countryside to the east, by varying the spacing, size, design and set back of units along the main spine road

 Green spaces between the three groups of housing, to provide a spacious green feel to this open countryside edge, and allow existing residents views out to countryside.

Figure 3: Original layout submitted (May 2016) Figure 4: Revised Layout (July 2017)

3.8 On the northern part of the site:  Revised layout to minimise the use/height of retaining walls; particularly an issue around units 46-65  Revised layout to minimise long runs of frontage car parking, and break up such areas with landscaping  Revise the road layout to provide a loop road within this part of the site  Lower the density by utilising the whole site, rather than leave a parcel of land for future development  Soften the edge of the development which fronts onto open countryside to the north by varying the spacing, size, design and set back of units.

3.9 Further revised plans were submitted 3 August 17 to address comments raised to the above plans. The changes were as follows:  Plots 1-6 revised  Highways comments addressed – including traffic calming, location of raised tables, retail access etc)

3.10 A further set of amendments were received on 1st September to address comments raised to the above plans. The changes were as follows:  Clarification of relationships between 24 Wadkins Way and Plot 45  Amendments to boundary treatment

3.11 Following the various amendments, the definitive list of plans for consideration is listed below:

 Location Plan Bushby Red Line Plan DE071_005 Rev C  Density plan MI104-Sl-040 (Density Plan) Rev A  Site layout MI104-SL-001 North layout Rev G1  Site layout MI104-Sl-002 South layout Rev G1  Site layout MI104-Sl-003 Full layout Rev B1  Coloured Site layout MI104-Sl-001 North layout Coloured Rev B  Coloured Site layout MI104-Sl-002 South layout Coloured Rev B  Street scenes MI104-PD-003 Coloured Street Scenes  3D Visuals MI104-Bushby (3D Visuals)  Phasing plan MI104-PH-001 Rev C  Surface materials MI104-MAT-011 Rev A  Surface materials MI104-MAT-012 Rev A  Means of enclosure MI104-MOE-007 Rev G  Means of enclosure MI104-MOE-008 Rev H  Boundary details MI104-PD-300 (Boundary Details)  Planning drawings Planning Pack - July 2017  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revF-101_1 of 15 Rev F  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revF-102_2 of 15 Rev F  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revE-103_3 of 15 Rev E  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revE-104_4 of 15 Rev E  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revF-105_5 of 15 Rev F  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revE-106_6 of 15 Rev E  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revE-107_7 of 15 Rev E  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revF-108_8 of 15 Rev F  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revE-109_9 of 15 Rev E  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revE-1010_10 of 15 Rev E  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revE-1011_11 of 15 Rev E  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revE-1012_12 of 15 Rev E  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revE-1013_13 of 15 Rev E  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revF-1014_14 of 15 Rev F  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revE-1015_15 of 15 Rev E  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revF-KEY PLAN 100 Rev F  Landscaping 6633-L-1019 PLAY AREA PROPOSALS rev A  Landscaping 6633-L-1020 PLAY AREA PROPOSALS rev A  Landscaping 6633-L-1021 PLAY AREA PROPOSALS rev A  Landscaping 6633-L-1016 COMPOSITE PLAN Rev B  Section through 45 & 24 Wadkins Way MI104-SL-050  Retail Unit 40521 003A Proposed Store LR Rev A  Retail Unit 40521 004F Proposed Site Plan Rev F  Retail Unit T16013 SK04 B Large Rigid Vehicle Swept Path Rev B  Demolition & Retention plan MI104-SL-041 (Demolition and Retention Plan) Rev A  Tracking MI104-EN-030 (Mise Engineering + Autotracking Large Bus)  Tracking MI104-EN-031 (Mise Engineering + Mini Bus)  Materials MI04-MAT-009 Rev G  Materials MI04-MAT-010 Rev G  Engineering Levels 15025 SK107A External Levels Layouts - Sheet 1 Rev B  Engineering Levels 15025 SK108A External Levels Layouts - Sheet 2 Rev B  Engineering Levels 15025 SK109A External Levels Layouts - Sheet 3 Rev B  Engineering Levels 15025 SK110A External Levels Layouts - Sheet 4 Rev C  Engineering Levels 15025 SK121A External Levels Layouts - Sheet 5 Rev B  Engineering Levels 15025 SK122 External Levels Layouts - Sheet 6 Rev B

 Engineering Levels 15025 SK123A External Levels Layouts - Sheet 7 Rev B  Engineering Levels 15025 SK124 External Levels Layouts - Sheet 8 Rev B d) Pre-application Engagement

3.12 Limited pre-application engagement.

4. Consultations and Representations

4.1 Consultations with technical consultees and the local community were carried out on the application on 5/7/16. A site notice put up on 21/7/16.

4.2 Further consultation for 21 days was undertaken on 18/7/16 as various documents were not available on the website. Also, in addition to the neighbours being consulted, all members of the public who responded to the outline application were also consulted on 25/7/16. Following submission of revised plans, 21 days re- consultation was undertaken from 7/7/17 to 28/7/17. A summary of the technical consultee responses received is set out below. If you wish to view the comments in full, please go to: www.harborough.gov.uk/planning. a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees (NOTE: Under each consultees, the most recent consultation response to the revised plans are provided first, and the original comments second.)

4.3 Natural England (7/7/16) Statutory nature conservation sites – no objection. Based upon the information provided, Natural England advises the Council that the proposal is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes.

4.4 Protected species We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species. Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species. You should apply our Standing Advice to this application as it is a material consideration in the determination of applications in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation.

4.5 The Standing Advice should not be treated as giving any indication or providing any assurance in respect of European Protected Species (EPS) that the proposed development is unlikely to affect the EPS present on the site; nor should it be interpreted as meaning that Natural England has reached any views as to whether a licence is needed (which is the developer’s responsibility) or may be granted.

4.6 Green Infrastructure The proposed development is within an area that Natural England considers could benefit from enhanced green infrastructure (GI) provision. Multi-functional green infrastructure can perform a range of functions including improved flood risk management, provision of accessible green space, climate change adaptation and biodiversity enhancement. Natural England would encourage the incorporation of GI into this development.

4.7 Local sites If the proposal site is on or adjacent to a local site, e.g. Local Wildlife Site, Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological Site (RIGS) or Local Nature Reserve (LNR)

the authority should ensure it has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal on the local site before it determines the application.

4.8 Biodiversity enhancements This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’.

4.9 Landscape enhancements This application may provide opportunities to enhance the character and local distinctiveness of the surrounding natural and built environment; use natural resources more sustainably; and bring benefits for the local community, for example through green space provision and access to and contact with nature. Landscape characterisation and townscape assessments, and associated sensitivity and capacity assessments provide tools for planners and developers to consider new development and ensure that it makes a positive contribution in terms of design, form and location, to the character and functions of the landscape and avoids any unacceptable impacts.

4.10 Sites of Special Scientific Interest Impact Risk Zones The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 requires local planning authorities to consult Natural England on “Development in or likely to affect a Site of Special Scientific Interest” (Schedule 4, w). Our SSSI Impact Risk Zones are a GIS dataset designed to be used during the planning application validation process to help local planning authorities decide when to consult Natural England on developments likely to affect a SSSI. The dataset and user guidance can be accessed from the data.gov.uk website

4.11 Environment Agency (14/7/16) The plans submitted appear to provide adequate space given to the control of surface water using SuDs techniques. We have no further comment to make on the application.

4.12 Historic England (13/7/16) The application(s) should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.

4.13 NHS England (2/8/16) Financial contribution requested £234,749. (Officer note – S106 Agreement has already been signed as part of Outline application, no further requests can be made at this stage)

4.14 LCC Ecology (15/8/16) We welcome the updated ecology report (RSK, June 2015) which confirms that the site has not substantially changed between the original full surveys and the interim survey. I understand that access was not granted to resurvey the Great

Crested Newt pond close to the application site and we are satisfied with the approach taken. It therefore seems appropriate that the mitigation plan is not changed from that previously agreed. However, as there are still badgers on site, we would recommend that a further badger survey is completed and submitted prior to the commencement of the development if works do not begin before May 2017 (two years since the last survey). If the development is to be phased, surveys should be completed prior to each phase.

4.15 Badger and GCN mitigation is required by condition 22 of the outline application and this is still relevant. This does require the installation of a badger underpass is required in the main spine road of the site.

4.16 The proposed layout is broadly in accordance with that submitted in support of the outline application. We welcome this as it retains buffers between the development and the existing ecological features (hedgerows, watercourse and dismantled railway) on or adjacent to the application site. A management plan for these areas should be submitted as required by condition 16 of the outline application.

4.17 Additionally, we welcome the proposed woodland planting to the eastern boundary of the site. As discussed at the outline stage this will allow connectivity to the dismantled railway, helping to continue the green corridor into the wider landscape and this should be seen as a biodiversity gain for this application. We also welcome the proposed native planting in the SUDs scheme to the north of the site.

4.18 It is likely that the wooded stream to the north of the application site also provides a good wildlife corridor. Wildlife (particularly bats) is sensitive to increase light levels. It is therefore essential that all lighting schemes on site are designed in such a way that there is not an excess of light on either the stream corridor or the dismantled railway. Some bat species are known to be sensitive to light levels as low as 1 lux and we would therefore recommend that the light spill on these areas is kept below this level. My response to the outline application included the paragraph: ‘The Arboricultural Impact Assessment submitted in support of the application (RSK, August 2013) identifies 4 mature trees around the site boundary which are likely to meet the Local Wildlife Site Criteria for mature trees. These are two Oak (tree 13 and tree 63) and two Ash (trees 39 and 40). One of the Ash trees has previously been identified as a candidate Local Wildlife Site. All of these trees are within the boundary of the site and are contained within features which appear to be being retained. However, we would appreciate clarification of the retention of these trees.’

4.19 I would appreciate confirmation that these trees are to be retained within the final plans. I assume that the Oaks will be retained as there is no development in the immediate vicinity and the landscaping plans suggest that the Ash will be, but I am not certain.

4.20 LCC LLFA (04/08/2017) When determining planning applications, Local Planning Authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where, informed by a site-specific flood risk assessment and will not put the users of the development at risk.

4.21 Further to our previous consultation response, revised details have been found which do not alter our previous recommendation as copied below.

4.22 Leicestershire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority advises the Local Planning Authority that the proposed development would be considered acceptable

to Leicestershire County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority with regards to the Reserved Matters application in terms of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.

4.23 LCC Footpaths (11/8/16) Public Footpath D20. In the circumstances I think it useful to re-state my previous comments on this development together with some supplementary points which are cogent at this stage in the planning process. 1. The developers provide for approval by Leicestershire County Council, prior to commencement of the development, construction details for the surfacing of Footpath D20, from Dolby Avenue to the point where it enters the new development, with a 1.8 metre wide tarmacadamed surface. (This footpath is enclosed between existing fences and the County Council recognises that there may be locations where 1.8 metres cannot be achieved). [This is being dealt with as part of a Section 106 Agreement] 2. That the developers construct the aforesaid surfaced footpath to the satisfaction of the County Council, prior to first occupation of the development. [This is being dealt with as part of a Section 106 Agreement] 3. The proposed route of Footpath D20 through a green corridor across the development site is to be welcomed. However, the developers need to ensure that they provide the footpath exactly on its legal line in order to avoid having to formally divert the footpath. There is a slight discrepancy between the legal line and the proposal plan line at the southern end near the dismantled railway which will need to be corrected before construction takes place. 4. The above section of footpath through open space should be constructed to 6Cs Design Guide standards with a 2 metre wide tarmacadamed surface. Preferably this should be done before first occupation of the development. 5. The developers should keep the Footpath clear of obstructions during construction work. 6. If the developers do need to close the footpath for any period then they must seek a temporary closure order from the County Council. 7. If the footpath is damaged by activities related to the development then the developers will be required to repair and make good the footpath. 8. No trees or shrubs should be planted closer than 3 metres from the edge of the path. 9. No new gates or stiles or other barriers should be placed across the path without prior consent of the County Council. 10. The 2 southern most of the three proposed non motorized user links between this development and the development immediately to the west should be constructed to 6Cs Design Guide standards with minimum 2 metre wide tarmacadamed surfaces, in order to provide all weather all year round access. 11. L.C.C. design compliant fingerposts will require to be installed where the new estate road intersects with the public footpath and L.C.C. design compliant waymark posts indicating the route of the public footpath will need to be installed where new estate footways intersect with the public right of way. See attached designs.

4.24 LCC Highways (8/9/16) The CHA are in receipt of a Reversed Matters planning application relating to planning reference 14/01088/OUT which was approved on 6th August 2014. The outline application relates to the development of up to 275 dwellings and up to 500 sqm of retail use (Class A1). Associated infrastructure, means of access, open spaces and landscaping have all been agreed within the previous outline application.

4.25 PROW

The CHA public rights of way officer has provided formal comments to the local planning officer on 11th August 2016.

4.26 Design Layout The CHA are in receipt of the drawing reference MI104-SL-001Q. The CHA have reviewed the proposals and offer the following advice:  Gradient issues: The CHA has noted the following gradients issues on site and agreed the following permissible gradients for the site: 1. Main Access Road: 1:20 maximum gradient to be amended to accept a 1:17 maximum gradient over a maximum length of 50m 2. Cul-de-sac: from 1:20 maximum gradient to be amended to 1:15 maximum gradient over a length of 30m to 50m  Private Roads: To comply with the 6Cs Design Guide, all private drives longer than 45m will require turning heads to be designed into the drive layout  Private drive access: The location of the access to plots 252 to 246 requires drivers to carry out a difficult manoeuvre in a location that will be heavily trafficked. The CHA request the applicant to provide vehicle tracking to detail this manoeuver. The CHA also request the developer amends the design to relocate this access on to the road fronting these properties.  Service Margin: The turning head located near plot 9 will require a 1m service margin. Service margins will also be required at a number of other turning heads within the development. The CHA requests the developer amends the plan to detail this change.  Access road service margin: A 1m service margin will need to be installed at the back edge of the access road on the east side of the access, from its connection with the footway at the junction in a northerly direction to its connection with the footway at plot 57.  Speed control features: Speed control features will need to be designed into the road layout to maintain a 20 mph design speed throughout this development. Further information on speed control can be found, in the 6C’s Design Guide, Part 3, Section DG5.  Open public spaces, pedestrian links and green areas located beyond the highway boundary: Due to budgetary constraints and long term maintenance costs, LCC will no longer consider adopting these areas in new developments. The CHA requests to developer to advise who will be responsible for the maintenance of these areas.  Proposed adoptable highway: The design plan indicates a loop road running from plots 115 to 201. The CHA requests to developer to confirm if this is to be offered up for road adoption

4.27 Should the developer wish the LCC to adopt this road the following points need to be considered:  The CHA will require a 1m service margin be installed at the back of the proposed highway throughout this section of the development including the turning heads and private drives.  A 2m footway will need to be installed throughout this section of the development.  Tracking for a large refuse vehicle will need to be provide to ensure it can negotiate this area.  The developer will need to pay a commuted sum payment as there are areas within the road design that are not required for the safe use of the highway. If the road is to remain private, the CHA will require the developer to amend the design of the road layout, and design breaks into the design to form Cul-de sac’s.

4.28 Further information on the design of private drives can be found, in part 3 of the 6C’s guide, section DG18.  Additional 2m footways: 2m footways will be required at the following locations:-  Footway to be provided fronting plots 168 to 259.  Footway to extend into the turning head leading to plots 90 to 83.  Footway to be provided fronting plots 252 into the turning head leading to plots 245 to 242. Please note that LCC will not consider the adoption of the grassed area at the back of the highway boundary.  Footway layout: The CHA request the developer realigns the footway fronting plots 104 and 105, to run along the kerb line and incorporate the proposed verges within the frontages of these plots. Please ensure when amending the design that visibility splays at the junction are maintained.  6.75m Major Access Road: The development layout details areas where the road is shown to have a width of 6.75m which the CHA considers inappropriate for this location. The CHA requests the developer to amend the road layout to detail a residential access road or access way to be provided in these locations. The CHA requests the developer advice why a 6.75m road has been designed.  Vehicle Tracking: If the road has been designed to allow access for coaches to the sports ground, please provide tracking to show that a coach and large refuse vehicle can negotiate the access road safely to access the sport facility.  Turning head: The CHA request that the turning head located at the sports facility and plots 253 and 259 be amended to a similar design as detailed for plots 235 and 245, with the private drive forming a connecting as is shown for plot 214  Visibility splay at plot 252: The wide verge in this location provide drivers with increased forward visibility, which could present road safety issue, due to drivers pre judge their exit on to the main access road without consideration to other drivers in this area. The CHA request that a raised table is designed into the layout at the junction and that hard landscaping is installed to reduce the visibility prior to the junction to improve road safety at this location.  Instillation of a private drive access: the layout plan details that the developer proposes an adoptable road is provided to serve the private parking area of plots 184 and 185. As this will only serve these two plots LCC will require the developer to amend the design to detail this as a private drive.

4.29 Section 106 The County Council has no specific comments to make on the reserved matters planning application no 16/00874/REM because there is an existing Section 106 planning agreement signed 4th June 2015 in relation to outline planning application (reference no. 14/1088/OUT).

4.30 LCC Highways (22/8/17) Revised highways observations were issued in July 2017 requesting further information and clarification following initial highways observations in September 2016. Since then, the applicant has been working with both the Local Planning and Highway Authorities to seek an acceptable way forward to address previous queries raised.

4.31 Internal Layout The internal road layout has again been subject to a design check and colleagues have confirmed that the site layout plan as presented on Bloor Homes drawing

number MI104-SL-003 revision A1dated 31/7/17 would be considered suitable for adoption subject to Section 38 highways technical approval if offered to the Highway Authority in the future. The applicant has also been made aware that there are a number of internal roads which have widths in excess of what is strictly necessary; the Highway Authority therefore reserve the right to charge commuted sums at Section 38 stage to cover the additional maintenance burden.

4.32 Residential Parking Provision The revised detached garage dimensions are acceptable to the Highway Authority. Plot 57 is also considered to now have sufficient parking provision for the number of bedrooms it will have.

4.33 The Highway Authority had previously raised concerns about the proximity of some on plot parking provision to the associated front door. It is clear whilst not every plot will benefit from parking immediately outside of their front door, the Highway Authority are satisfied that the applicant has considered this request and has mitigated to the best of their ability, bearing in mind other site constraints, and aspirations.

4.34 Retail Store The retail store will now have a single point of vehicular access off the main spine road, and the access of the store has been improved to provide greater protection to pedestrians. In the absence of an end user of the retail unit being known, swept path analysis has been undertaken to demonstrate that a rigid HG Vehicle would be able to enter and exit the site in a forward gear without impeding any of the parking provision.

4.35 The retail store will now benefit from cycle parking and the design of the disabled parking amended such that both are now acceptable to the Highway Authority.

4.36 Other Observations that affect the highway network which in the view of the Local Highway Authority cannot be considered “severe” in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF, but which may impact on the amenity of the local community. The Local Planning Authority is advised to consider if these are material and the relative weight which that they can give in planning terms to these amenity issues in their decision making processes.

4.37 Whilst a predominantly car park management issue for the retail store, the Local Planning Authority may wish to consider restricting the size of the delivery vehicle to that shown on the submitted swept path analysis to ensure that the circulation, and operation of the car park and safety of customers is not compromised whilst servicing and deliveries are taking place.

4.38 LCC S106 Contributions (6/7/16) The County Council has no specific comments to make on the reserved matters planning application no 16/00874/REM because there is an existing Section 106 planning agreement signed 4th June 2015 in relation to outline planning application (reference no. 14/1088/OUT). As long as the reserved matters are covered by the existing S106 agreement then I have no further comments.

4.39 LCC Archaeology (6/7/16) We would like to repeat our previous recommendations for retention of Ridge and Furrow earthworks where possible within the scheme (e.g. within areas of Public Open Space) and for an archaeological Earthwork Survey of the Ridge and Furrow earthworks across the site to be undertaken prior to development commencing.

4.40 LCC Forestry Team (19/7/16) I've looked at the landscape proposals here and have several comments. The proposed planting pit design is absolutely fine for paved frontages and highway footpaths, as it incorporates Silvacell root volume technology to avoid excessive compaction, etc.. Incidentally I don’t see any such planting in paved areas on the plan – have I missed it? The same underground preparation is required on highway grass verges to enhance tree survival, but of course the surface grilles etc. will not be required. The underground system may not really be necessary on open spaces in formerly agricultural land, unless that land has been heavily compacted, built-up, excavated, etc. and otherwise structurally damaged, and again the grilles will be unnecessary. A 1.5m radius circle of woodchip or crushed bark mulch to a depth of 100mm will enhance establishment by retaining moisture and discouraging competitive weed growth.

4.41 On open spaces the design includes various small-to-medium sized, short-to-medium life expectancy trees such as Betula pendula (silver birch), Betula utilis Jaquemontii (Himalayan birch), Sorbus aucuparia (rowan) and Acer campestre (field maple) when such large open spaces could accommodate much larger trees which provide far greater environmental services (air improvement, rainfall attenuation, pollution/dust control, wildlife habitat, etc., etc., etc.) and visual appeal for a far longer period, i.e. 150+ years rather than 30+. Such long-term 'landscape' framework planting should be demanded for these very reasons. Appropriate species at distance from properties would include Quercus robur (English oak), Quercus rubra (red oak), Tilia spp. (various limes), Fagus sylvatica (beech), Alnus cordata (Italian alder), Carpinus betulus (hornbeam), Castanea sativa (sweet chestnut), Acer pseudoplatanus (sycamore), Acer platanoides (Norway maple), Platanus x hispanica (London plane), Corylus colurna (Turkish hazel), Liquidambar styraciflua (sweetgum), Pinus sylvestris (Scots pine), Pinus nigra (Corsican pine), etc., etc.

4.42 There are various locations on small house frontages where trees are proposed. In my opinion the tree species selected are too large-growing for such positions and I would expect later householders to have them removed because of shade, overbearing, detritus, etc.. Presumably the houses will not be constructed with sufficient depth of foundation to permit the full development of larger-growing trees, with the potential problems of later root-related damage. The landscape subsequently becomes degraded and trees are unlikely to be replaced. Carpinus betulus ‘Frans Fontaine’ (fastigiate hornbeam) although with superior form than C.b.‘Fastigiata’, ultimately grows into a dense, dark, ovoid shape at least 10+m tall which is very difficult to prune satisfactorily. Betula utilis Jaquemontii (Himalayan birch) is a beautiful species with white bark and light open foliage, but still grows to some 10+m, and again difficult to prune without destroying its appearance. It is far better to start with trees which are less likely to irritate residents and therefore stand a better chance of remaining and contributing to the ambience of the development. At distances of less than 6m from house fronts, I would suggest considerably smaller- growing species, which might ultimately reach 5/6m in height and more able to withstand some modest pruning without destroying their appearance. Such species might include Amelanchier Robin Hill (juneberry), Acer campestre Nanum (field maple variety), Acer griseum (paperbark maple), Betula pendula Youngii (weeping birch), Cornus controversa Variegata (wedding cake tree), Crataegus monogyna Stricta (fastigiate hawthorn), Euonymus Red Cascade, Hibiscus x Resi, Juniperus scopulorum Blue Arrow (pencil juniper), Photinia Red Robin, various small cherries including Prunus Accolade, P.Amanogawa, P.Pandora, P. x subhirtella Autumnalis, various smaller rowans including Sorbus aucuparia Vilmorinii, S. hupehensis,etc.. (These are not exhaustive lists).

4.43 The larger trees are specified as RB – root-balled. I think trees of this size would be far better specified as container-grown, in 150L containers by a specialist nursery. Root-balled trees from experience (unless expensively prepared and transplanted several times before sale) have very poor attenuated root systems, with much of the root left in the nursery when lifted. This clearly has serious repercussions for establishment and healthy development. The need for subsequent replacement is therefore far higher.

4.44 On any verges to be adopted, LCC will not accept rootballed trees for this reason and will specify specialist container grown stock.

4.45 HDC Housing (5/7/16) No comments

4.46 HDC Parish Liaison (19/7/16) No comments on Reserved Matters.

4.47 HDC Environmental Health (22/7/16) Owing to the close proximity to existing residential accommodation, and given the size of the development, I recommend the Construction Method Statement condition is attached to any approval granted.

4.48 HDC Green Spaces Officer (3/8/16) The overall layout of open space as indicated on dwg DE071_RM_01 is satisfactory. It retains and enhances the existing rights of way and incorporates anticipated new desire lines to adjacent developments and facilities. ( has it been established that the links with the adjacent Jelson development can be included? Without these this development will be compromised)

4.49 The species used for general landscaping, along with the specification for planting are satisfactory save for the comment on tree species below. I am pleased to note that the wildflower areas are not to be topsoiled.

4.50 Betula utilis ‘jaquemontii’ has been used extensively as tree planting throughout the development. This genus causes allergic response in some people and alternative species could be used. Betula utilis ‘Jaquemeontii’ may also get too large for some location close to properties such as outside plots 266 – 269 and 270 – 273 and plots 48 and 49 etc. Alternative species should be used in these locations.

4.51 Alternative tree species could include longer lived and larger trees in certain circumstances e.g. on the larger areas of open space, such as Quercus spp, Fagus spp, Tilia spp etc.

4.52 Point 15 on dwg 6632 – L -100 rev C notes Charnwood Borough Council to be consulted on waste bin provision. Please amend to Harborough District Council.

4.53 The attenuation ponds are proposed to be planted with marginal species, and should enhance the north portion of the site adjacent to the watercourse. I note the use of wetland meadows as ‘swale’ structures.

4.54 It is a concern that the access to the adjacent open space for allotment and sports pitches is subject to a separate planning application. This does not give confidence that the application will be either made or approved. Para 14 of the second schedule of the 4th June 2015 Agreement states that ‘as a minimum the 1.1 ha of open space

land as sports facilities and 0.24605 ha as allotments subject always to the grant of the requisite planning and other consents’. The application should be made and determined prior to discharge of the landscape conditions.

4.55 Play Areas The play area (two No 400m2 and on No 1200m2 ) have been included in the landscape proposals, but no detail of the design or equipment has been included. As per condition 6 of the decision notice issued on 4th June 2015, the following should be received prior to discharge of the landscaping conditions: The layout details to be submitted in accordance with condition 1) shall include open space, amenity areas and play areas, the defined boundaries for these areas, their proposed uses, the age groups for which they are intended and the items of equipment, means of enclosure and all other structures to be installed, together with a programme for their provision and a phasing plan for the development as a whole. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved programme and phasing.

4.56 Maintenance proposals Point 14 of dwg 6632 – L -100 rev C notes that for management and maintenance the Landscape Management Plan should be referred to. I have not been able to find a landscape management plan for the site and assume this has not been submitted. The Agreement of 4th June 2015 requires a ‘Management Company Scheme’ to be submitted to the Council for approval prior to offering the landscaped area to the District Council or for them to be maintained by a management company. The topsoil depths indicated on the dwg 6632 –L-100 rev C on open spaces , shrub areas etc are satisfactory, as is the 75mm mulch depth for shrub areas. b) Local Community 4.57 Parish Council (15/8/16) At the meeting of the Parish Council held on Monday 8 August 2016, it was RESOLVED to OBJECT to the application on the following grounds: 1. Housing density - It was noted that the original area for development included Charity Farm and that an area to the west is now marked as being retained as 'existing, subject to a future planning application'. The proposal remains for 275 dwellings, resulting in a greater housing density. The number of dwellings should be reduced pro rata to take account of the above two areas and there should be a condition that land not identified to be built on should be designated as green space. 2. Housing type - It was noted that there are bungalows included in the affordable housing provision. However, in view of the demographics of Thurnby and Bushby the development should also include market bungalows for those who currently own larger properties in the settlement and who wish to downsize, but do not qualify for affordable housing. 3. Car parking - It was noted that car parking is inadequate and does not meet the Highways recommendation of three spaces for four bed houses. Parking for the smaller houses is in parking bays on the highway, which will result in a cluttered appearance. Concern was also expressed that there may be inadequate access for emergency vehicles. 4. Public right of way D20 - There is no information on works to improve the public right of way. Details should be provided. 5. Pedestrian/cycle link to Jelson development - Details of this should be provided. 6. Contaminated land - Soil testing should be undertaken in the area of the dismantled railway line, which is crossed by the roadway through the development. 7. Primary school - The catchment school is St Lukes, despite the fact that Fernvale is closer to the development. Concern was expressed that parents, particularly those living at the extremities of the development would drive children to and from St

Lukes, thus further adding to congestion on Main Street and throughout the village to the south of the A47. 8. Vehicular access onto the A47 - Concerns at difficulties for vehicles entering and leaving the development using the single vehicular access, in particular for those wishing to turn right towards Leicester city. This is likely to be particularly hazardous at school start and finish times. 9. Open space for football pitch and allotments - The open space provision in the original application was within the red line. This is now shown as being outside the red line and subject to a further planning application. In addition, it should be noted that Parish and District Councillors will be holding a drop in session for residents on Saturday 20 August, 10.00 12.00, at the Hill Court Community Centre. The Parish Council was disappointed that Bloor Homes had declined an invitation to attend the drop-in and take questions, particularly as they had not held any public consultation events prior to submitting the application. Issues raised at the drop-in will be collated and submitted by the Parish Council.

4.58 (7/9/16) Further comments received. I note that in the letter from Define dated 16 August 2016, point 4 in response to matters raised by Cllr Simon Galton states that "If there is consensus to screen where existing and proposed properties are shown adjacent to one another, then we will look to address this". Based on the feedback at the drop-in and comments made more generally, there is clearly a wish to address the relationship of existing and proposed properties by making changes to the layout of the site.

4.59 ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION BY THURNBY AND BUSHBY PARISH COUNCIL FOLLOWING RESIDENTS’ DROP IN HELD ON 20 AUGUST 2016 The Parish Council submitted its comments on the application following the meeting held on Monday 8 August 2016. The Parish and District Councillors arranged a drop in session for residents on Saturday 20 August. Bloor Homes were invited to send a representative to take questions, but declined. This was disappointing, particularly as the developer had not provided an opportunity for consultation prior to submitting the application. The drop-in was attended by: 42 residents County/District Cllr Simon Galton District/Parish Cllr Amanda Burrell Parish Cllrs: Pat Chamberlain (Chair), Haydn Gopsill (Vice-chair), Sue Johnstone, Alex Keller and James King The following is a summary of matters discussed with Parish, District and County Councillors. In addition, the text of an email sent by a resident who was unable to attend the drop in is attached as Appendix B. The written comments left by residents at the drop-in are being sent as a separate document. While some of these address issues other than the proposed development, they have been included for completeness.  Impact of additional traffic on the A47 into Leicester, and the consequent knock on effect on junctions along the A47, especially at the Station Road/Uppingham Road traffic lights.  Concern about the extra traffic in the village especially as the catchment school is St Luke's and the impact at school start and finish times of traffic at the Main Street junction with the A47 and along Main Street to Grange Lane.  The impact of additional traffic on traffic calming/pedestrian safety issues in the vicinity of Main Street/Grange Lane/Court Road and potential backing up.

 Access to the A47 from the single road on the development and the turning arrangements towards the city; how can a single road be safe? If it gets blocked no one can get in or out.  Impact on the school.  Impact on the GP surgery.  Concerns at the siting of the play areas on the development.  The lack of parking for the NEAP/community orchard.  Suggested better location for the community orchard would be on the site of the farmhouse, to encourage residents using the car park to the shop to make use of the orchard.  Concern about the football field and allotments being at the northern end of the development, protruding into the open countryside.  Over-density of housing.  There should be a continuous buffer and tree screening along the whole boundary, including that adjacent to housing on Wadkins Way/Devenports Way and the boundary of the northern field where the site adjoins the Jelsons development.  There should be tree screening wherever properties on the development are adjacent to existing properties.  The need for a balance of housing mix and distribution across the site appropriate to the area.  Bungalows needed on the boundary with Wadkins to reduce overlooking existing properties.  Lack of adequate off street parking for houses (especially larger properties).  Concerns over the widening of the footpath to Dalby Ave and how it can be achieved.  Questions regarding necessity for a shop.  Suggestion that the shop site would be a more appropriate location for the football field.  Suggestion that the footpath should go all the way round the development, rather than rejoining the road at Pulford Drive in the north west corner, so that people can walk all the way round the development on a path. (Officer note – the written comments from the public submitted by the parish council are summarised in the public comments section below, paragraph 4.88)

4.60 Further Comments (15/08/17) The Parish Council considered the application at the meeting held on Monday 14 August 2017 and RESOLVED to submit a NEUTRAL response with the following comments: The Parish Council welcomed the developers willingness to consult and work with the Parish Council and Ward Councillors; the local community; and, householders directly affected was welcomed and it was considered that issues raised at the PC drop in session had been addressed. The PC noted and endorsed the Ward Councillors recommendation that the proposed pedestrian crossing on the A47 be moved further to the west, closer to the existing Wadkins development.

4.61 Thurnby and Bushby Society (26/7/16) The Committee of the Thurnby And Bushby Society objects to this Application for the following reasons:

4.62 Housing density The development will have a cramped appearance both from within the site and from the viewpoint on entry to the built up area from the east on the A47. While it is to be welcomed that much needed smaller housing types are proposed to be provided for

Thurnby and Bushby, we feel that they are of minimum dimensions and packed too close together. Those who buy small houses should not be obliged to live in such an environment. We suggest that part of the areas left for future development should be used to give a more generous layout.

4.63 Car Parking Parking arrangements may not be adequate - do they meet standards? 2-bed houses have just a space in front of the house and, as far as we can tell, none of the 4-bed houses has a double garage. They appear to have a single garage (sometimes joined to the neighbour's) with standing space for two other cars 'line astern' in front of the garage, blocking in the cars behind. There is no room to put the cars side by side. The need to access cars at the back will lead to some being parked on the highway.

4.63 In conjunction with the small frontages this could result in a street scene visually dominated by cars parked on drives or on the highway, giving a cluttered appearance and making two- way driving along the roads difficult.

4.64 Surface water drainage We have concerns about how the site will cope with surface water received from surrounding areas which are higher than site. This flows right from near the A47 to Thurnby Brook and the present Application Site receives this water. The north site is already wet near to the dismantled railway line. Bearing in mind the flooding issues in the adjacent Jelson site, has the water flowing down the slope been taken into account?

4.65 Foul water drainage It is not clear how foul water drainage will be handled. If it is to existing sewers, do they have adequate spare capacity? (See Condition 10 of outline permission). Bearing in mind that sewage has overflowed in Station Road Thurnby we hope that no more foul water is being directed towards the City.

4.66 Retail outlet There is a lack of detail on who might operate the retail outlet, or the nature of goods to be sold. Presumably it will be for the sale of food? This should be embodied into the Application.

4.67 Public right of way There is a lack of information on off-site works to upgrade public right of way D20 (perhaps the statement in the S106 agreement is all that is required).

4.68 Children's play areas There are no details of the content of the children's play areas. This seems to have been left to be agreed with HDC, with no public consultation. (See Condition 6 of outline permission).

4.69 Pedestrian and cycle link to the adjacent Jelson development Is the access to the Jelson's development secured by a legal agreement? This link is necessary for access to Fernvale School, the Pulford Drive buses and local shops. (See Condition 23 of outline permission). Is it to be suitably paved for use by cycles and pushchairs or wheelchairs?

4.70 Ancient tree The Applicants should be aware that the Ash tree in the hedge near to 24 Wadkins Way is a Registered Ancient Tree. In the Application it is marked as subject to

structural survey to determine if it is suitable for retention, and the housing layout assumes it isn't. However the Arboricultural Impact Assessment submitted with the outline Application (tree T40 in section 4.1.2.1) says it has 'high conservation value' and they describe the works required for its retention in a housing setting. In fact such a magnificent ancient tree could be made a feature of the Development. The tree is in healthy leaf throughout its canopy. There is certainly a lot of life left in it. We request that an independent assessment and advice is sought from the County Council Forestry department. Being an Ancient Tree it could support a wide range of wildlife and should be assessed by the County Council Ecology department. We suggest that any remedial work should be carried out by tree surgeons experienced in caring for ancient trees. We note that drawing MI104-SL-002N shows that this tree is in a hedgerow outside the site boundary, so presumably the tree is not in the applicant's ownership?

4.71 Badgers There is extensive movement of badgers in the area which will be particularly encouraged when the community orchard is producing fruit. We request a badger tunnel under the access road which could join up to the proposed badger gate.

4.72 Green perimeter strip We are pleased to see a green perimeter round most of the site. We suggest this concept of leaving an ecological buffer zone adjacent to the old field hedges should be continued on the south site by the western hedgerow. This would necessitate the relocating or removal of plots 27 -31 and particularly plots 46 and 56. Plot 56 would then not compromise the Ancient Ash Tree referred to above, and the local badgers which feed here would not cause conflict with future householders. We note that there is a perimeter path round most of the north site. Perhaps this should be completed in the north-east sector by the brook and ditch to complete the circuit.

4.73 Contaminated land Where the dismantled railway line crossed the site, the cutting was filled in. The geophysical survey at outline stage showed high responses in this region. The rumour is that the infill included farm machinery. Soil testing should be carried out to check for possible leaking of contaminants such as oil into the water table.

4.74 Phasing We were surprised to see that the construction of the Foul Pumping Station is left to Phase 4. How is the foul water flow to be handled before the pump is installed?

4.75 Primary School allocation We are concerned that the movement of children to and from St Lukes School when the development reaches phases 2, 3 and 4 involves a long walk or cycle ride through phase 1, and then crossing the A47. Parents may well prefer to use their cars, which will create even more traffic congestion at the new development junction of the A47 as well as on Main Street around the school.

4.76 We consider that Fernvale School would be the safer and therefore more appropriate option as the primary school for young children from phases 2, 3 and 4 of this development, as it could be accessed on foot or by cycle without having to cross the A47.

4.77 For all the above reasons we urge you to refuse this Application in its present form.

4.78 (24/8/16) Further comments received:

Our comments on the part of the agent’s letter addressing the Thurnby And Bushby Society's comments on their reserved matters application are:

4.79 Housing Density We do not agree that the housing density "accords with the principles of the outline permission". Indeed the applicant's covering letter submitted with the outline application (dated 5th August 2014 Ref 071 HDC 050814 MR) explicitly says (our bold) that this issue is to be left to the reserved matters: "Please find enclosed a planning application for the residential development of land at Charity Farm, Uppingham Road, Bushby (15.80ha) to provide a maximum of 275 dwellings and a small convenience retail (A1) store (max 500m2 ), together with associated infrastructure, open space and landscaping. The application is submitted on behalf of Bloor Homes Ltd. It is an outline planning application with all matters reserved for later consideration, except for the access from Uppingham Road." We believe that the present density will look and feel cramped and degrading to people wanting to live in smaller accommodation. We suggest the areas left for future development should be used now to lessen the density. Even then it may be that 275 dwellings cannot be accommodated to a sufficient design standard. This figure was only a maximum. We suggest that the site needs to meet better design standards suitable for such an edge-of-built-area location. Any housing density figure has to be appropriate to the site.

4.80 Housing Numbers The Development Framework Plan (dwg DE071_006) submitted with the outline application showed the proposed built areas in brown. However, the present detailed plan shows the dwellings accommodated in less space than that, with some of those areas reserved for future applications. On that basis the site could end up with more than the maximum of 275 dwellings approved at outline.

4.81 Parking Provision We do not consider it acceptable for the three car provision for the four bedroom houses to be tandem. We note the applicants say it is not viable to provide on-plot parking for all dwellings and wonder if this is contrary to Council policy. We repeat that the minimal spaces allocated to car parking will inevitably result in many cars being left on the highway.

4.82 Pedestrian / cycle link We note that the pedestrian and cycle link to the Jelson development is not yet secure.

4.83 Ancient tree We note that this tree is now to be retained following remedial work.

4.84 Green perimeter strip The applicants refer to their response to Cllr Galton’s query (his item 4) but this does not explicitly mention our suggestion of completing the green perimeter strip on the south site.

4.85 With regard to the applicant's response to Cllr Galton's item 5 - connection with Wadkins Sports Ground - we would urge the applicants to continue negotiations with the land owner (HDC?) for a proper link from the cul-de-sac immediately north of Charity Farm. This would prevent a rough informal link being established through the hedge boundary, which is what we believe will happen.

4.86 We await the outcome of the applicant's promised review of the layout and further documentation.

4.87 Thurnby and Bushby Society (08/08/17) The Committee of the Thurnby And Bushby Society objects to this Application for the reasons detailed in our letter of the 2nd August 2017. We enclose our concerns after consideration of the letter dated 27th July 2017 from DEFINE who represent Bloor Homes Ltd (We have for ease of reference kept to the same numbered paragraphs as our above letter): 1. Access through the Jelson development S106 Agreement condition 23 states “no development shall commence until a scheme for the delivery of the proposed pedestrian /cycle links from the development to the adjacent Pulford Drive scheme as shown on the Development Framework Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include timescales for the delivery of these links and detail of their dimensions and construction. The development shall thereafter only proceed in accordance with the approved detail.” We request information to whether this condition has been complied with at this time. We would ask if not yet complied with, to whether the link could be in place for Phase 1, as per our above letter. 2. Retail outlet The Transport Assessment by BSP Consulting in paragraph 3.6 states that “servicing and delivery vehicles will also access the store via the internal road network, with a service yard provided at the rear of the building”. There does not appear to be a service yard on the plans. It appears that only a tracking drawing has been provided for service vehicles at the front of the retail outlet. We note that the footpaths have been amended but still require pedestrians to walk beside the road junction. 3. Sole road access and exit to development The initial Transport Assessment by BSP Consulting did not refer to the retail outlet. The subsequent Addendum Transport assessment did not re-assess the junction considering the proposed retail outlet with the agreement by LCC, paragraph 4.15. We would query to whether this is not following the 6Cs Design Guide and that a full assessment is required. Further both assessments did not consider the following; 1. Possible on street parking problems by the outlet and the junction to the A47, and as such no recommendations were made regarding pedestrian footpaths to the outlet being sited away from the junction. 2. Construction traffic details, such as likely number of lorries and their routes to and from the site. 3. Query whether the assessments take consideration of “road peak hours” (which will have increased since 2010). 4. The proposed outlet has no comparable from the centre of Leicester to the A1 junction in Peterborough, as stated in our above letter. 5. The proposed sport ground and allotments traffic (no application having been made at the time of the assessments). The Transport Assessment does mention in paragraph 6.11 the following; 1. Pedestrian links between the site and Pulford Drive development 2. Toucan crossing facility on Uppingham Road, just west of the junction with Wadkins Way. Is this going to be implemented? We would as per our above letter request CHA Harborough District to advise on the impact of a one entrance junction and the impact on traffic by the trade from the proposed outlet onto the A47, and to provide proposals to make the junction safe for all user., and refer to the below clause for the power to do so. S106 agreement 2.17 gives no fetter of discretion “to the duties of the District Council and the County Council in their respective rights powers duties and obligations under all public and private statutes bylaws and regulations”. 4. Public right of way D20 to Dalby Avenue

S106 Agreement condition 4.2.4 “provide that the persons exercising the rights under the licence shall observe the owner’s reasonable regulations …” We would request that contact be made with the owners as per our above letter. All our comments in relation to this paragraph in our above letter remain live issues. 5. Density of development and car parking Our concerns remain as per our above letter. 6. Incomplete Perimeter Path Our concerns remain as per our above letter 7. No Provision for Badger Movement Our concerns remain as our above letter. We still request confirmation that the badger report as referred to in the S106 Agreement does refer to the movement we identified in our above letter. 8. Bus tracking diagram from the A47 to the proposed sports ground This is a new filed document by DEFINE representing Bloor Homes Ltd, and raises the following concerns: 1. It assumes no roadside parking, especially near the tight bends 2. Some of the on-site junctions require the bus to use the full width of the junction 3. There is no other road access to the sports ground if the only through route is blocked 4. How will the bus get out if there is a block? Is there anywhere to turn apart from the sports ground car park? For all the above reasons that require further attention we urge you to refuse this Application in its present form.

4.88 Local community 34 representations have been received from 25 separate households raising the following matters: Principle  Number of houses is out of keeping with the area  I believe there should not be houses built on a green space which currently houses wildlife.  We moved to Bushby for the quiet village atmosphere and the building of a huge 275 housing estate across the road from our property was not what we anticipated. Layout  No Bungalows  Wouldn’t it make more sense to have sports pitches and allotments near A47  There should be a buffer between the new houses and the Bushby Woods development  Bloor Homes and the land owner only interested in lining their pockets and as such cheap builds in small spaces will on the agenda.  The houses are very cramped and packed together in a dense layout with little or no double garages or off road parking.  Need at least 30m buffer zone around plot 27 to 32 - houses here too cramped, bungalows and green space better situated near the retail area, easy shopping for elderly people.  The Orchard seems a waste of space when it could be allocated to create the buffer zone, the road could be reposition more to the east, and concealed more into the landscape as it is less of a gradient as were it is planed at the moment with low level lighting to limit the light pollution . Highways  Concerned that only one vehicular access onto A47  Is A47 access safe? Should it be a roundabout?

 Footpath doesn’t seem to follow original route  Are their any proposed 'dedicated' cycle lane routes from the new housing scheme into the city centre where one can only assume residents of the new 275 houses will most likely be commuting to. Amenity  Can you please swap Plot 1, 2 & 3 (2B3P) with plot 4, 5 & 6 (2BB) this will give my children more privacy as their bedrooms are facing towards these plots.  Loss of privacy  Loss of light  Concerned about the impact of plot 45 on our property, overlooking and on higher ground  Noise and disturbance  It looks like efforts have been made to provide some buffer space between new builds and the current Bushby Woods development. However, I would hope that this could be improved / extended to offer existing residents some respite from being overlooked. General  Who will be responsible for the play area?  Is the green space hear Charity Farm community land?  How will the Doctors and Schools cope?  Loss of biodiversity and wildlife  The impact on crime due to increase population and potential social houses.  The negative impact on house prices in the area  I understood that the development was granted subject to issues being resolved with Footpath D20 (not completed yet) , a commitment for occupancy on the retail site (nothing confirmed yet) and leisure facilities being included within the application (sports pitch proposal is outside the boundaries of the current application and would therefore need separate planning approval).  Impact upon The Ancient Ash tree T40

5. Planning Policy Considerations

5.1 Please see above for planning policy considerations that apply to all agenda items. a) Development Plan

o Harborough District Core Strategy (Adopted November 2011)

5.2 Relevant policies to this application are CS1, CS2, CS5, CS8, CS9, CS10, CS11 and CS17. These are detailed in the policy section at the start of the agenda. b) Material Planning Considerations

o The National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) 5.3 Paragraphs 7, 11-14, 17, 47, 49, 53, 118, 186, 187, 197 and 215, and Chapters 4, 6, 7 are particularly relevant.

o Supplementary Planning Guidance 5.4 The Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes that are relevant to this application are Note 1: Design Principles to be applied in Harborough District; and Note 2: Residential Development: Major Housing Sites

o New Local Plan

o The National Planning Policy Guidance o The Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 c) Other Relevant Information

o Reason for Committee Decision 5.5 This application is to be determined by Planning Committee as it is for more than 10 dwellings.

6. Assessment

a) Principle of Development

6.1 The site has outline permission (access only) for up to 275 dwellings and a retail store. The permission includes associated infrastructure, means of access, open space and landscaping. The principle of development of the site for retail and housing has therefore been accepted.

b) Planning Considerations

1. Heritage Impact 6.2 The application site sits within and on the southern slope of the valley between the two settlements of Bushby and Scraptoft. As such, the site is relatively remote from the historic core of the settlements. The Thurnby and Bushby Conservation Area lies approximately 250m to the east, whilst the Scraptoft Conservation Area lies approximately 775m to the north west of the site. One of the closest Listed Building to the site is the Grade II Listed Scraptoft Hall which lies 950m to the north west of the site. Given the site’s remote distance from these Designated Heritage Assets, and the very limited inter-visibility between them, it is not considered that the proposal would result in any harm to the designated heritage assets.

6.3 In consultation with LCC’s Archaeologist a geophysical survey and fieldwalking have been undertaken by the applicants to demonstrate whether there are any archaeological remains present. The relevant reports have been included in support of the application. The geophysical survey did not identified any anomalies of archaeological origin and evidence of ridge and furrow along with modern ploughing suggest the site has a largely agricultural past. The fieldwalking survey identified dispersed pottery finds, but no concentrations and a complete absence of Romano- British material. The archive, including finds, photographs and the associated report, are to be deposited with LCC Heritage Services in accordance with Conditions 17-19 on the Outline consent.

6.4 On the basis of the above, it is considered that the proposal complies with para’s 132 and 141 of The Framework and Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy in terms of Heritage Impact.

2. Design and Layout 6.5 The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

6.6 The design and layout of the proposal is assessed below, using the national guidance in the NPPG, which states that good design should achieve the following

objectives: local character (including landscape setting), safe, connected and efficient streets, a network of greenspaces (including parks) and public places, crime prevention, security measures, access and inclusion, efficient use of natural resources, cohesive and vibrant neighbourhoods.

6.7 Policy CS2(b) advises all housing development should be of the highest design standard (in conformity with Policy CS11) and have a layout that makes the most efficient use of land and is compatible with the built form and character of the area in which it is situated. Policy CS11 states that new development should be directed away from undeveloped areas of land which are important to the form and character of a settlement or locality.

6.8 Policy CS2 requires that sites of 0.3ha or above are required to meet the 30dph minimum net density standard. This is flexible where individual site circumstances dictate and are justified. The development is the maximum 275 dwellings as approved at outline. The Density Plan show a density of 33.2dph (including roads, and excluding open spaces). Using the same methodology, this can be compared with 20dph on the Wadkins Way development to the south and west, and 33dph on the Jelson’s development to the west which both abut the site.

6.9 Policy CS2 requires a mix of housing types on larger sites. The site proposes a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bed market units. The Housing Officer is content with this mix.

6.10 The outline permission did not impose a condition regarding layout, but included a note that the development is to be in accordance with the Development Framework (see Figure 4).

Figure 4: Approved Development Framework

6.11 The applicant submitted a Compliance Statement with the application which details how the reserved matters proposal is in general accordance with the outline permission. The Statement can be summarised as follows:  The positioning of housing, trees and open space responds to the topography of the site  Green fringe along the northern and eastern edge of the development – countryside edge  Front development onto the disused railway cutting/open space to the southern edge of the northern part of the site  Drainage features and wetland habitat along the northern edge along the existing watercourse  Development arranged into perimeter blocks with public frontage facing outwards and gardens contained within the block  Protect the amenity of existing residents  Sensitive landscaping along the south-western boundary with existing residents, with open space corridors to retaining views out to open countryside to the east  Informal footpath route along the perimeter of the site  New woodland planting along the alignment of the disused railway line  Community orchard on the north facing slope (southern section of the site)  Connect to existing communities and streets – Pulford Drive development to the west and Dalby Avenue to the south-west  Green corridor along the public footpath also a central focus point for the development including a children’s play area  Locate the convenience store close to the Uppingham Road frontage and integrate it into the residential development.  Retain vegetation along the Uppingham Road  Clear and legible hierarchy of streets and spaces  275 units (176 market units and 99 affordable (36%))  Dwelling height limited to two storey  Open space provision in accordance with the requirements in the S106  Single main access point off Uppingham Road with traffic calming measures and characterised by grass verges and informal tree planting and avenue style planting along the initial section of the access route.  Internal loop road within the site to aid access and servicing  Use hedges to separate private drives from adj open spaces and help screen vehicles  Primary access route has a distinct character, defined by a wider road, more formal appearance with tree planting lining the route and dwelling boundaries defined by estate railings and hedgerows. Parking recessed on private driveways to the side of dwellings. Red brick to denote primary route.  Render not to be used in the southern part of the site along the countryside edge

6.12 The layout has been revised and improved during the application. In particular, a green buffer is now provided to the existing residents to the western boundary, increasing separation distances. There is now a lower density, softer edge to the countryside and the 10m buffer to the site boundary is provided (as requested in note 14 on the outline permission). The dwelling heights have been reduced from 2.5 to a maximum of 2 storey.

6.13 A perimeter footpath is provided around the majority of the site (not to the east where levels are steep). The layout clearly shows the footpath access points to the Jelson’s development to the west to aid permeability of the site. Condition 23 of the outline

refers to the pedestrian/cycle links to the Pulford Drive scheme (the Jelson’s development), and requires details of the delivery of the scheme.

6.14 There have been several changes to the original layout due to concerns about levels. The original layout required the use of many high retaining walls, leading to an overbearing impact from some units over others. Many of the units impacted were affordable units, and national guidance is clear that affordable housing should not be ‘banished to the least attractive part of the site’. The 8 revised levels plans show retaining walls will be required in several locations. The amenity impact of this is considered in the amenity section below. The final proposed layout plan can be seen at Figure 5.

Figure 5: Proposed Layout Plan

6.15 Various house type designs are proposed. The NPPG states that ‘in well-designed places affordable housing (see Figure 6) should not be distinguishable from private housing (see Figure 7) by its design’. Examples of the house types are shown below. It is considered that the design mix and style of dwellings proposed is appropriate for

the site, given the modern developments which abut the site. Design details include porches, render, bay windows and cill and lintel detailing.

Figure 6: Examples of affordable units proposed

Figure 7: Examples of market units proposed

6.16 The design of the retail unit has been revised during the application also. The original and revised designs are shown Figure 8 and 9.

Figure 8: Original retail unit proposed

6.17 The revised design provides an active frontage to the access road and the car park area. The unit is located in the position agreed at outline stage. Parking is located where its visibility from Uppingham Road is minimised, and landscaping on the Uppingham Road frontage is proposed. The design is modern, with a curved roof and maximum glazing which reduces the bulk of the building. The store entrance is located on the corner which addresses the access road; maximising its accessibility by those walking from Uppingham Road. Blank elevations have been minimised by

design details such as pillars, glazing and contrasting materials. Materials details can be secured by condition. Two vehicular access points are proposed and 26 parking spaces plus 3 disabled spaces. Bins/recycling are to the west. Originally the retail store was supposed to be integrated with dwellings, but this area is now shown as retained for the farm. Conditions are recommended to control hours of Delivery and /opening for the retail unit.

Figure 9: Revised retail units proposed

6.18 Details of materials are secured by outline condition 15. However materials details have been submitted. The materials plans show three colours of facing brick is proposed (all shades of red) and three roof tiles (two grey and one brown). Various units include white roughcast render, black boarding and mock tudor black boarding. The materials plans can be secured by condition. No render is proposed to face the countryside edge (east) as recommended by the landscape impact appraisal. There are limited properties on other edges which feature render, it is considered that a condition requiring this to be Ivory or similar rather than white will reduce the visual impact of these units. Notwithstanding the acceptability of these materials, in order to allow flexibility at a later date, it is not recommended that materials be approved as part of this Reserved Matters application, rather that details are submitted for separate approved as per condition 15 of the outline consent.

6.19 Details of surface materials have also been submitted. The plans show all main roads as tarmac, with raised tables paved in charcoal. Private drives are also all tarmac. These plans can be secured by condition.

6.20 The submitted Phasing plan (see Figure 10) shows 4 phases of development. The delivery of affordable and market housing and open spaces will be phased as per the plan, and in accordance with the S106. The applicants have confirmed that the site compound will likely be located to the east of the site on land adjacent to the site and that this would be carried out under Permitted Development.

6.21 Overall, the layout and design are considered appropriate for the site. Conditions are recommended as detailed above. Outline condition 7 requires details of refuse and recycling for dwellings. A further condition is suggested to secure details of refuse/recycling for the retail unit. On the basis of the above, it is considered that the

proposal is in accordance with Policy CS11 in terms of the design and layout of the site.

Figure 10: Phasing Plan

3. Landscaping, open spaces and boundary treatment 6.22 Policy CS17c) provides several criteria to ensure that rural development will be located in a way that is sensitive to its landscape setting. Policy CS11 states that development should include an appropriate landscaping scheme.

6.23 The outline application was supported by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. It recommended the following:  Existing vegetation to the A47 road frontage retained and supplemented  Existing hedgerows retained  Green corridors along the northern boundary (abutting the stream), following the line of the public footpath and next to the existing woodland on the disused railway line  Open green spaces on the steeper slopes  Structural landscaping along the stream (northern boundary) and access road (eastern edge) and through the extension of the disused railway line woodland – to filter and screen views into the development

 Low density development on the countryside edges, with blocks to face out to the countryside in an informal arrangement – to soften the abrupt transition between the urban area and countryside  Building heights limited to 2 storeys and darker muted colours used – to allow buildings to merge into their backdrop.

6.24 The outline permission includes several conditions regarding open space.  Conditions 4/5 require the reserved matters to include all details of trees and hedgerows to be retained/removed and boundary treatment and planting to path boundaries.  Condition 6 requires this reserved matters application to include details of open space, amenity and play areas with defined boundaries, use, age group, equipment, enclosure, programme for provision and phasing.  Condition 20 states that the woodland play area is not approved  Note 14 states that a long term management plan for landscaped areas and natural boundary features should be submitted with the reserved matters application.

6.25 As part of the outline permission, the S106 secured provision of no less than 2.165625ha of open space land, to include a minimum of:  1.1ha of Sports Facilities  0.61875ha of amenity greenspace  0.20625ha of children and young people’s equipped play area  0.240625ha of allotments The S106 secured an Open space Specification for open space works and maintenance standards to be agreed for each development parcel prior to development commencing on that parcel. No more than 70% of units on a parcel are to be occupied before the open space is completed.

Figure 11: The ‘Green Land’ – location of the sports facility and allotments (extract from S106)

6.26 The S106 included a provision that the open space land can be located on the ‘green land’ (land adjacent to the north of the site) (see Figure 11) and as a minimum that land would accommodate the 1.1ha of Sports Facilities and 0.24605ha of allotments

(subject to the necessary consents). An application has been submitted for that land (reference 17/01117/FUL) (see Figure 12) and as such the open space requirement for the site is to be met partly within the red line of this application, and partly on the ‘green land’.

6.27 The applicant has submitted detailed landscaping plans. The proposals can be summarised as follows:  3 play areas; two in the northern part of the site (one centrally located as part of the central open space which follows the line of the public footpath, and the second adjacent the disused railway line) and the third located on the southern part of the site, to the east of the main access road within open space.  11m of hedgerow is to be removed to enable the main access road to enter the northern part of the site. Existing boundary hedging and existing trees are to be retained.  The existing hedge within the site (to the south of units 32 and 25 is to be removed. The applicants have clarified that this hedge has to be removed due to the changes in level proposed across the site and that the ground leve in this location is being significantly reduced.  Trees along the access road (southern site) are shown evenly spaced and this is not what the landscape impact assessment recommended and is too formal. Notwithstanding these concerns, this is in accordance with the Development Framework approved at outline stage.

Figure 12: Proposed Sports Pitches and Allotments (17/01117/FUL)

6.28 The Means of Enclosure plans show a mix of boundary treatments are proposed; fencing, walls, green screens, hedgerow, railings and knee rails. Green screens separate gardens from the central open space, which provides the footpath route a green corridor. A condition is recommended to require further details of the ‘brick entrance feature’. Furthermore, a condition is recommended to require further landscaping enhancement to the rear of the farm site to soften the appearance of the proposed close board fence. The applicants have worked with Officers to reduce the amount of prominent close board fencing throughout the site, proposing a mix of

brick walls, green screen fencing (see Figure 13) and close board fencing where appropriate.

Figure 13: Examples of “green screen” fences

6.29 There are a number of retaining walls throughout the development, including some which are quite substantial. Whilst the majority of these are in a plot to plot relationship, and therefore not prominent in the streetscene, there are a few instances where they will be visible, and indeed quite prominent. This is particularly the case for plot 46 which will have a large retaining wall along its eastern boundary which is likely to be very prominent when driving / walking along the main access route into this part of the development. As such, the material finish of these walls is important from the point of view of the walls not being too out of keeping with the character of the development. As such, a condition is recommended to ensure details of the materials for these walls is submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.

6.30 Overall, the proposed landscaping of the development is considered appropriate for the site. Conditions are recommended as detailed above. Conditions have been recommended to secure further information where this is necessary. On the basis of the above, it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with Policy CS11 in terms of the landscaping of the site.

4. Amenity Impacts 6.31 Core Principle 4 of the Framework seeks to ensure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings and this is also reflected in Policy CS11. SPG2 provides standards for amenity; a minimum distance of 21m between facing elevations containing principal windows and a minimum distance of 14m between a blank elevation and an elevation containing a principal window, although these standards will be applied flexibly depending on the individual merits of each site.

6.32 The public consultation has raised concerns from nearby residents about overbearing, overlooking, loss of privacy and loss of light. Where new dwellings are proposed to be adjacent to existing properties (or properties with planning permission such as those on the Jelson’s development) the amenity impacts are highlighted in the Table at Figure 14.

Existing dwelling New Officer assessment of amenity impact dwelling plot number 37 Devenports Hill 1,2,3,4 38m separation distance. Revised plans show units facing the side elevation of 37 are bungalows. 19 Devenports Hill 24 31m separation distance. New unit is a bungalow. 17 Devenports Hill 32 38m separation distance. New units located to the north-east with landscaping in between. Unit is now dormer bungalow 15 Devenports Hill 30, 31 35m separation distance. New units face the rear elevation but landscaping in between. Units are now dormer bungalows 13 Devenports Hill 33, 34 30m separation distance. Plots located to the north-east and landscaping in between. 7 Devenports Hill 37 30m separation distance. Plot 37 located to the north-east and landscaping in between. 5 Devenports Hill 37 26m separation distance, with landscaped area in between. 24 Wadkins Way 45, 37 28m and 30m separation distances. Plot 45 is lower than 45 with landscaped area between. See Figure 15 which confirms relationship) Jelson development 275, 261, All proposed units are minimum 15m (max 36m) from the 171-176, western site boundary with the Jelsons development. All 168-170. approved units on the Jelsons site are also set back from the site boundary. The minimum separation distances are therefore 28m. Figure 14: Amenity impact on existing residents

Figure 15: Extract of Layout Plan indicating levels relationship between 24 Wadkins Way and Plot 45

6.33 As mentioned in previous sections, retaining walls are required in several locations. For example, on the southern site between units 37-45 a wall of 1.65m is proposed (units 39-41 are higher than 46-47), and back to back distances between units are 19-21m. Also, retaining walls are required between units 1-24. Retaining wall heights vary from 0.5m to 1.45m. Separation distances are 22-28m back to back and 10-12 back to side.

6.34 The levels difference is most acute on the northern site; where the main access road enters. The highest retaining wall here will be 2.7m (between the rear garden of plot 46 and front garden of plot 65 which will be lower). This minimises the impact on the rear garden of 65 where a wall of 1.45m are proposed. Units 48 and 49 will be 2.7m and 1.85m above the level of unit 65. The relationship is rear to side, so no direct overlooking of habitable rooms is created. The separation distance is 18m (unit 48 to 65) and 21m (unit 49 to 65). Unit 65 is orientated east-west so the natural light will be available to the rear garden. This is considered acceptable, and much improved from the original proposed layout. Retaining walls are also required further down this slope (south), but these are limited to 1.35m and 1.275m. The rear gardens affected (units 57-60) are south facing and so natural light is maximised.

6.35 Also on the northern site, retaining walls are required between units 113 and 111 (1.45m) and the separation distance is 10m, but the side elevation of 113 faces the rear of 111 and 112 and the units are not directly opposite one another. Retaining walls are proposed between units 117-136 and 103-110 (max 1.95m). The separation distance is between 20-30m back to back and 15m back to side. A retaining wall is required between plots 251-253 and 256-258 (max 1.06m). The separation distance is 20-22m back to back. Retaining walls are proposed between units 210-226 (max 1.275m). Separation distances are 20m back to back and 12.5 back to side. Retaining walls are proposed between unit 209 and units 241-243 (max 1.05m) and the back to side distance is 11m. Retaining walls are proposed between units 137-153 (max 2.7m between units 141/142 and units 147-150). Separation distances back to back here are 21-28m. Retaining walls are proposed between unit 155 and units 156/157 (max 1.5m). The separation distance is 16m side to rear. Retaining walls are proposed between units 154/155/158-165 and units 166/167 (max 1.275m). Separation distances are 21-23m back to back and 18m back to side. Overall, the layout is considered to protect amenity of residents affected by retaining walls.

6.36 There are a number of retaining walls throughout the development, including some which are quite substantial. There majority of these are in a plot to plot relationship, and therefore not prominent in the streetscene. Notwithstanding this, the material finish of these is important from the point of view of the walls not being too overbearing upon the amenity of the dwelling. As such, a condition is recommended to ensure details of the materials for these walls is submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.

6.37 Overall, the amenity impacts are considered acceptable, subject to the conditions as set out above. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy in terms of residential amenity.

5. Affordable Housing 6.38 Policy CS3 requires all residential developments to contribute to meeting affordable housing needs. The outline permission secured 36% affordable housing on the site (99 dwellings) and a mix of 1-3 bed properties unless otherwise agreed. The revised layout shows 99 affordable units and a mix of 1-3 bed properties including 6

bungalows. The amount, mix and location are therefore acceptable to the Housing Officer. The affordable units have been secured by the S106.

6. Highways, access and parking 6.39 Policy CS5 states that proposals for assessing traffic impact, highway design and parking provision associated with new development should accord with the County Council guidance (6C’s guide). Policy CS11 states that development should be well planned to incorporate safe and inclusive design and encourage travel by a variety of modes of transport. The NPPF states that ‘development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe’. Access was considered at outline stage.

6.40 Outline condition 11 secured that the development be carried out in accordance with the Site Access Plan and 12 secured compliance with the County design standards. Condition 14 secured a Residential Travel Plan. Condition 23 requires details of the links to the Jelson development.  Note 5 traffic calming required  Note 11 car parking spaces 2.4 x 5.5 (plus 0.5) and garages 3 x 6 internally

6.41 The site layout includes a main access road of 6.75m width which leads to the sports pitch/allotments. There is a legible loop road within the site. Other smaller roads and private drives lead off the main access road. The single and double garages proposed are in accordance with the County size standards for parking spaces. Overall, the site provides 644 parking spaces for the 275 dwellings (2.3 spaces on average per dwelling). The parking spaces meet highways parking space size standards. The revised plans include amendments requested by County Highways. County Highways raise no objections subject to conditions. The County Footpaths Officer suggests various conditions regarding the footpath and connections to the west and these can be secured by condition.

6.42 Overall, the Highways impacts are considered acceptable, subject to the conditions as set out above. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy in terms of highways and access.

7. Ecology 6.43 Policy CS8 relates to protecting and enhancing green infrastructure and part (d) relates to biodiversity. The NPPF states that when determining applications, the LPA should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity. The site is not a designated ecological site. The outline permission secured a Biodiversity Management Plan (condition 16) and development in accordance with the recommendations of the Badger Report, Great Crested Newt Report and Reptile Survey Report (condition 22). Condition 21 required that an updated Ecological Survey was submitted with the reserved matters application. Notes 13 and 14 requested that boundary features are retained and a 10m buffer provided between the built development and the site boundaries.

6.44 The applicant submitted an Updated Ecology Report (June 15) which stated updated field surveys were undertaken in May/June 2015. The report concluded that there have been no significant changes in habitats, there has been no great increase or decrease in Badger activity and Water Voles and Bats have not colonised the site. Access was not available to resurvey for Great Crested Newts. However, if a Great Crested Newt was found then all work must stop, an ecologist must be called and a re-evaluation of the need for a European Protected Species licence would be made.

6.45 Natural England has no comment on the application. The County Ecologist welcomes the retention of existing ecological features and the provision of woodland planting and the native planting in the SUDS scheme. The landscaping plans show that trees T13 and T63 (oak) and T39 and T40 (ash) are to be retained. The revised layout shows that plots have been pulled away from the root protection area of T40. The submitted Tree Survey for T40 found a visible crack and likely internal decay/cavity, and recommended substantial crown reduction. The tree is in the ownership of Harborough District Council and the relevant officer has been made aware of the Survey results and recommendations.

6.46 Conditions are recommended to secure a badger survey prior to each commencement of each phase of the development, and lighting levels max 1 lux for units which face the site boundaries.

8. Flood Risk 6.47 The Framework requires that development be directed away from areas of highest flood risk. The site is within Flood Zone 1 (low risk). Policy CS10 adds that the use of SUDS will be expected and that surface water run off should be managed to minimise the net increase in the amount of surface water discharged into the local public sewer system.

6.48 Conditions were imposed at outline stage regarding foul drainage and surface water drainage/SUDS (condition 10).

6.49 The applicant has submitted plans showing the details of the four proposed flood attenuation basins, located adjacent to the northern boundary of the site.

6.50 The LLFA do not object to the proposal and recommend an informative in relation to existing outline condition 10, which needs to be discharged.

9. Other matters raised 6.51 Concerns have been raised through representation regarding the need for a Construction Method Statement, and Construction Traffic Plan and Contaminated Land studies. These were all secured at Outline stage, and details of these will have to be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA prior to the commencement of work on the site.

c) S106 obligations and CIL

6.52 Planning obligations were secured at outline stage.

7. Conclusion / Planning Balance

7.1 The reserved matters proposal is considered to meet the relevant Development Plan policies. There are no material considerations which indicate against the proposal. The application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions as set out in Section 8 of the report.

8. Suggested Conditions

8.1 If Members are minded to approve the application, Officers recommend that the following conditions are atached to any approval:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with the following approved plans:  Location Plan Bushby Red Line Plan DE071_005 Rev C  Density plan MI104-Sl-040 (Density Plan) Rev A  Site layout MI104-SL-001 North layout Rev G1  Site layout MI104-Sl-002 South layout Rev G1  Site layout MI104-Sl-003 Full layout Rev B1  Coloured Site layout MI104-Sl-001 North layout Coloured Rev B  Coloured Site layout MI104-Sl-002 South layout Coloured Rev B  Street scenes MI104-PD-003 Coloured Street Scenes  3D Visuals MI104-Bushby (3D Visuals)  Phasing plan MI104-PH-001 Rev C  Surface materials MI104-MAT-011 Rev A  Surface materials MI104-MAT-012 Rev A  Means of enclosure MI104-MOE-007 Rev G  Means of enclosure MI104-MOE-008 Rev H  Boundary details MI104-PD-300 (Boundary Details)  Planning drawings Planning Pack - July 2017  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revF-101_1 of 15 Rev F  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revF-102_2 of 15 Rev F  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revE-103_3 of 15 Rev E  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revE-104_4 of 15 Rev E  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revF-105_5 of 15 Rev F  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revE-106_6 of 15 Rev E  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revE-107_7 of 15 Rev E  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revF-108_8 of 15 Rev F  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revE-109_9 of 15 Rev E  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revE-1010_10 of 15 Rev E  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revE-1011_11 of 15 Rev E  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revE-1012_12 of 15 Rev E  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revE-1013_13 of 15 Rev E  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revF-1014_14 of 15 Rev F  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revE-1015_15 of 15 Rev E  Landscaping 6633-L-Landscape Proposals revF-KEY PLAN 100 Rev F  Landscaping 6633-L-1019 PLAY AREA PROPOSALS rev A  Landscaping 6633-L-1020 PLAY AREA PROPOSALS rev A  Landscaping 6633-L-1021 PLAY AREA PROPOSALS rev A  Landscaping 6633-L-1016 COMPOSITE PLAN Rev B  Section through 45 & 24 Wadkins Way MI104-SL-050  Retail Unit 40521 003A Proposed Store LR Rev A  Retail Unit 40521 004F Proposed Site Plan Rev F  Retail Unit T16013 SK04 B Large Rigid Vehicle Swept Path Rev B  Demolition & Retention plan MI104-SL-041 (Demolition and Retention Plan) Rev A  Tracking MI104-EN-030 (Mise Engineering + Autotracking Large Bus)  Tracking MI104-EN-031 (Mise Engineering + Mini Bus)

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt.

2. Notwithstanding the hereby approved plans, no development shall commence on site until details of the existing and proposed ground levels and finished floor levels of the development (including the position, height and finishing treatment of any retaining

wall structures) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained as such in perpetuity.

REASON: To ensure a satisfactory form of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding locality and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

3. No development shall commence on site until a further ecological survey for badgers has been carried out (in optimum conditions) and the results and mitigation measures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Surveys shall also be carried out, and the results and mitigation measures submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA prior to the commencement of each phase after Phase 1. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained as such in perpetuity.

REASON: In the interests of wildlife and nature conservation and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

4. There shall be no lighting of greater than 1 lux installed at units which bound site boundaries.

REASON: In the interests of wildlife and nature conservation and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting or amending that Order with or without modification), no buildings or structures, or gate, wall, fence or other means of enclosure, other than those shown on the approved plans, shall be erected anywhere within the site shown on the approved plans.

REASON: To safeguard the character and appearance of the area and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11

6. No development shall commence on site until the trees on and overhanging the site have been enclosed by protective fencing, in accordance with British Standard 5837 (2010): Trees in Relation to Construction. Before the fence is erected its type and position shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority, and after it has been erected it shall be maintained for the duration of the works and no vehicle, plant, temporary building or materials, including raising and or, lowering of ground levels, shall be allowed within the protected areas(s).

REASON: To enable the Local Planning Authority to ensure the protection of trees on the site in the interests of visual amenity and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11

7. The hereby approved retail unit shall not be open to members of the public other than between the hours of 07:00 and 22:00 from Mondays to Saturdays and between 09:00 and 17:00 on Sundays and Bank or Public Holidays.

REASON: To ensure the creation/retention of an environment free from intrusive levels of noise and activity in the interests of the amenity of the area and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11

8. The delivery and despatch of goods to and from the hereby approved retail unit shall be limited to between the hours of 07:00 and 22:00 from Mondays to Saturdays and between 09:00 and 17:00 on Sundays and Bank or Public Holidays.

9. Notwithstanding the hereby approved plans, prior to the commencement of development, a program for the delivery, maintenance and retention of all the areas of public open space shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The development shall thereafter be carried out and maintained in accordance with these details

REASON: To safeguard the character and appearance of the area and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11

10 Notwithstanding the hereby approved plans, the Public Right of Way D20 shall be finished with a tarmacadam surface of no less that 1.8m in width for the extent of its route through the site.

REASON: To ensure a satisfactory form of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding locality and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

11 Notwithstanding the hereby approved plans, the materials for the construction of the hereby approved dwellings are not approved.

REASON: To enable future consideration of development materials which may be more suitable at the time of construction.

Planning Committee Report

Applicant: Bloor Homes Ltd Application Ref: 17/01117/FUL Location: Land at Uppingham Road, Bushby (site is within Scraptoft) Proposal: Construction of a single sports pitch (1.1ha), allotments (0.25ha) and associated access road, parking area and landscaping relating to the approved development of up to 275 dwellings on land at Charity Farm, Bushby (Outline Planning Application Ref. 14/01088/OUT). Application Validated: 04/07/2017 Target Date: 03/10/2017 Consultation Expiry Date: 10/08/2017 Site Visit Date: 13/07/2017 Case Officer: Mark Patterson

Recommendation

Planning Permission is APPROVED, for the reasons set out in the report and subject to the conditions set out in Section 8 of the report.

1. Site & Surroundings

1.1 The application site comprises approximately 1.72ha of agricultural land that forms part of a larger field, with a hedgerow and individual trees forming the western site boundary, and individual trees forming the southern boundary (along an existing brook). The site directly adjoins the northern boundary of the land at Charity Farm application site that already has outline permission for residential development. Reserved matters for that development are currently under consideration by the Council (16/00874/REM) and the applicants have designed the proposals so as to ensure that these are fully integrated into the residential scheme.

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

1.2 Land to the west and southwest of the site has permission for residential development by another developer (Jelson), the first phase of which (on the site to the south west) is currently under construction. Land immediately west of the site will form the second phase of the Jelson development.

Figure 2: Aerial view of the site

2. Site History

2.1 There is no relevant planning history on the application site, however, the adjacent site to the south of the site has the following recent planning history (see Figure 3).

Plan No. Decision / Date Description of Development

11/00003/OUT REFUSED Residential development for up to 150 dwellings 09.03.11 together with access, drainage, services and open space

13/01306/OUT REFUSED Erection of up to 275 dwellings and up to 500m2 of 22.01.14 retail use (Use Class A1) with associated infrastructure, access, open space and landscaping (means of access to be considered only)

14/01088/OUT APPROVED Development of up to 275 dwellings and up to 500 04.06.15 sq.m of retail use (Class A1) with associated infrastructure, including means of access, open space and landscaping (Revised scheme of Outline Planning Application 13/01306/OUT)

16/00874/REM PENDING Development of up to 275 dwellings and up to 500 CONSIDERATION s.qm of retail use (Class A1) with associated infrastructure, including means of access, open space and landscaping (Reserved matters of 14/01088/OUT)

Figure 3: Planning History

3. The Application Submission

a) Summary of Proposals

3.1 The application proposes a single full-sized senior sports pitch, based upon the FA recommended guidelines, which includes the required run off safety areas (see Figure 4). The size of pitch proposed can also accommodate 2 x U9/U10 or 4 x U7/U8 junior pitches, to provide greater flexibility in its use. Limited earthworks are proposed to provide the necessary site levels in accordance with the FA Guide.

Figure 4: Site Layout Plan `

3.2 The application site is proposed to be accessed via a new vehicular route with integrated footpath (see Figure 5) that links to the proposed main internal access road for residential development to the south (see Figure 6). A parking area is proposed immediately north of the site entrance, providing 30 parking spaces, suitable for car and minibus parking to support the scale of sports facilities proposed (see Figure 5). Agricultural / maintenance access is provided via the site entrance and car park and along the western boundary (see Figure 4), with access from the parking area managed via removable bollards (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: Proposed Access and Parking Arrangements

3.3 The proposed area of allotments totals 0.25ha (see Figure 4) in accordance with the S106 Agreement and is offset to the west of the sports pitch. A 10m x 10m area to the north of the parking area and adjacent to the pitch has been set aside for the potential future provision of a changing facility on site (see Figure 5). Financial contributions towards sports facilities are provided in conjunction with the outline application for the main site. As such, provision of any associated built facilities on the application site is at the discretion of the District Council.

Figure 6: Proposed site plan for 16/00874/REM indicating relationship between application site and adjacent development

b) Documents submitted

i. Plans

3.4 The application has been accompanied by the following plans:  Red Line Plan (Ref. DE071_009 Rev B)  Topographical Survey (Bushby Sports_2D Rev 0)  Proposed Site Layout including access (Ref. 15025 003 Rev E)  Landscape Proposals Plan (Ref. 6633-L-1017 Rev B)  Site Sections (Ref. 15025 006 Rev A)  Site Levels and Earthworks Plan (Ref. 15025 007)

ii. Supporting Statements

3.5 The application has been accompanied by the following supporting statements –

 Application Form  Covering Letter 0307/17  Landscape & Visual Appraisal Addendum (June 2017)  Approved Landscape & Visual Appraisal (August 2013 - as OPP)  Ecology Appraisal (correspondence dated 3rd May 2016)  Stage 1 and 2 Arboricultural Impact Assessment (May 2016)  Archaeological Fieldwalking Survey (17th January 2017)

c) Amended Plans and/or Additional Supporting Statements/Documents

o Response to LLFA initial comments 3.6 Having discussed the proposals in further detail with representatives of the LLFA), it has been confirmed verbally that they do not consider that an FRA is required, subject to confirmation of the various design matters. I therefore write setting out the points discussed and request that they are consulted in order that they can formally respond in this respect. 1. The agricultural land within which the application site lies is currently under- drained with clay pipes and infiltrate, and benefits its own outfall to the existing watercourse to the south. The land is currently in agricultural use and the development is not considered to be at risk of contamination. 2. The application proposes no impermeable surfacing, with the sports pitch surfaced with grass and naturally draining, and all access and parking areas laid with a free-draining granular surface. As such the development would not increase surface water runoff to other areas. 3. Limited earthworks are proposed to provide appropriate levels across the site for the pitch use and to ensure natural drainage is directed southwards towards the existing watercourse. It is proposed that a construction method statement for the sports pitch will be submitted to HOC that confirms construction of the pitch surface to maximise natural drainage and ensure that it is suitable for football use for as long a period as possible. 4. The sports pitch is to provide a local facility predominantly for football use and, as indicated above, is not designed as an all-weather pitch or required to meet Sport England design standards. As such, the site is not required to be positively drained. 5. The site will be managed and a lockable gate provided at the main access. This will ensure that use of the pitch can be avoided in periods of extreme wet weather or if any flooding should occur. 6. As indicated on the submitted plans, proposed headwalls and piped culvert will ensure that the existing watercourse is unaffected by the proposed development. Given the above, the proposals are not considered to trigger the need to undertake an FRA, and additional detailed design information to reflect the principles outlined above can be provided and relevant conditions imposed should planning permission be granted. I would be grateful if you would consider the above points in consultation with the LLFA and look forward to their further feedback.

d) Pre-application Engagement

3.7 Limited pre-application engagement.

4. Consultations and Representations

4.1 Consultations with technical consultees and the local community were carried out on the application on 12/07/17. A site notice put up on 13/07/17.

4.2 A summary of the technical consultee responses received is set out below. If you wish to view the comments in full, please go to: www.harborough.gov.uk/planning.

a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees

4.3 Sport England The Government, within their Planning Practice Guidance (Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities Section) advises Local Planning Authorities to consult Sport England on a wide range of applications. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/open-space- sports-and-recreation-facilities-publicrights-of-way-and-local-green-space#open- space-sports-and-recreation-facilities This application falls within the scope of the above guidance as it relates to the creation of new playing fields. Sport England assesses this type of application in line with its planning objectives and with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Sport England’s planning objectives are to PROTECT existing facilities, ENHANCE the quality, accessibility and management of existing facilities, and to PROVIDE new facilities to meet demand. Further information on Sport England’s planning objectives can be found here: http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for- sport/aims-and-objectives/

4.4 The Proposal and Assessment against Sport England’s Objectives and the NPPF It is assumed that the proposed sports pitch is required to meet a local policy requirement as Sport England was not involved (nor required to be involved) in the determination of the related housing application. It is also assumed, therefore, that there is an identified need for both the pitch and the specific sport as proposed. Clearly we are unaware if there is a specific reason for siting the facility in this location, is this the first phase of a larger scheme as part of a wider development area?

4.5 It is understood, that given the submission of the application that it is too late to create and additional pitch adjacent to Bushby playing fields located to the south west of the site, or some other location, in order to create a multiple facility/pitch site which could be operated on a more sustainable basis, particular given the parking proposed and the potential for changing facilities.

4.6 You will no doubt be aware that, Sport England is currently supporting the council in the development of a playing pitch strategy which will give a greater understanding of the need for sports pitches of all types to support the needs of existing residents and the demand generated by future developments.

4.7 Playing Field Design Sport England recommends that a ground conditions assessment is undertaken by a sports turf specialist/agronomist who can recommend a scheme for preparing the playing fields to the required specification. The recommended scheme should then be implemented. Detailed guidance on the issues that require consideration is set out in Sport England’s guidance ‘Natural Turf for Sport’.

4.8 Conclusion Sport England recommends, based on our assessment, that if the Council is minded to approve the application, the planning conditions should be imposed, this suggestion is more particularly concerned with the quality of pitch required related to the standard of football envisaged for the site.

4.9 Environment Agency

We have reviewed the application and it does not meet the criteria for a consultation with us, therefore we have no detailed comments to make.

4.10 LCC Landscape (Trees and Woodlands) The development proposals are on the north bank of the water course and appear to be in Scraptoft parish. The proposed removal of scrub and pollarding of willow trees to facilitate the development of the sports pitch and the new car park is to be mitigated by the landscape planting scheme. As the site is in the countryside and adjacent to a watercourse I suggest that the landscape planting should consist of principally native tree and shrub species.

4.11 Suitable native species for this site include alder (Alnus glutinosa); small leaved line (Tilia cordata); field maple (Acer campestre) and aspen (Populus tremula). Blackthorn is a local native shrub however it has sharp thorns that can be hazardous and is very invasive. I suggest that as the site is designated for sport and recreation that blackthorn is not planted on this site Hawthorn, hazel and dogwood and grey willow are suitable native shrubs for this site.

4.12 The boundary of the sports pitch is proposed to be stock fenced. I suggest that a hawthorn hedge with oak and field maple as individual hedgerow trees are planted on the north and east boundaries to form a long term stock proof boundary that is in keeping with the adjacent agricultural land. Tree and shrub planting must be protected from rabbits and possibly hares with shelters of over 75cm in height and maintained with a 1.0m diameter weed circle for a period of 3 years.

4.13 LCC Ecology The ecology survey submitted in support of the application (RSK, May 2016) is satisfactory. The report identifies the majority of the site as being an arable field, bounded by the south by a vegetated stream corridor. No protected species were recorded on site although a number of trees were assessed as having bat roost potential. If these trees are to be removed as part of the development they should first be surveyed for the presence of roosting bats.

4.14 I am not able to find any details of any proposed lighting of this site. Based on this I assume that no lighting is proposed. If there are lighting proposals it should be designed to ensure that the spill onto the brook corridor is not greater than 1 lux, to ensure that the wildlife corridor is protected. These details should be approved prior to determination or as a condition.

4.15 LCC Highways The County Highway Authority is in receipt of application 17/01117/FUL for the construction of a single sports pitch (1.1ha), allotments (0.25ha) and associated access road, parking area and landscaping relating to the permitted development of up to 275 dwellings on land at Charity Farm, Bushby (Outline Planning Application Ref. 14/01088/OUT).

4.16 The application details the following application context and basis for the application submitted: Outline planning permission was granted for the development of up to 275 dwellings on land at Charity Farm on 4th June 2015, following completion of the S106 Agreement to secure various elements and financial contributions associated with the development, specifically including the provision of public open space. Schedule 2 of the S106 Agreement confirms a requirement to provide 1.1ha of sports facilities and 0.240625ha of allotments, and identifies the ‘Green

Land’ as an area upon which the Open Space Land required in conjunction with the residential development can be provided. The Green Land identified forms the application site. The provision of a sports pitch and allotments are a direct requirement of the S106 Agreement attached to the outline planning permission granted for the residential development of the site to the south.

4.17 The County Highway Authority is also in receipt of the reserved matters application 16/00874/REM for the layout proposed for the aforementioned outline application. In planning terms therefore the specific means of access to the 17/01117/FUL application will also depend on 16/00874/REM which is currently pending determination.

4.18 Following review of the submitted 17/01117/FUL application the County Highway Authority would make the following comments:  Further detail is required on the surface type proposed for the access road and parking areas. The plan submitted details “unbound free draining surface”. The 6Cs Design Guide would typically advise at least a 5m hardbound surface behind the highway boundary however the parking surface will need to be suitable for ongoing and year round use.  Parking proposed does not accord with the 6Cs design standards and should be justified against the maximum expected usage of the facility and include space for a coach.  Demarcation is advised to regularise the spaces and layout proposed and to ensure that the required manoeuvring space for a coach is available. The layout currently proposed with no demarcation is likely to lead to indiscriminate parking and which would prevent a coach from being able to access, park, turn and leave the site in a forward gear.

4.19 LCC Lead Local Flood Authority When determining planning applications, Local Planning Authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where, informed by a site-specific flood risk assessment and will not put the users of the development at risk.

4.20 The application is for the development of a full size sports pitch, allotments, associated access road, parking and landscaping within the village of Bushby. The site is identified to be at low risk of fluvial flooding, but is in an area that is at medium to high risk of surface water flooding, however limited information regarding the extent of this risk or potential mitigation measures has been provided.

4.21 A full Flood Risk Assessment has been provided for the previously approved scheme under 14/01088/0UT; however this phase of the development appears to be further north and outside of the original site boundary. Therefore, a separate assessment will need to be provided taking into account revised requirement for climate change.

4.22 Leicestershire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority advises the Local Planning Authority that:  The application documents as submitted are insufficient for the Lead Local Flood Authority to provide a detailed response at this stage. In order to provide a detailed response, the following information is required: o A revised flood risk assessment. o Plans of a proposed surface water drainage strategy, showing proposed SuDS features, indicative levels and a suitable outfall location/discharge point. Where infiltration is proposed, infiltration testing in accordance with

BRE 365 Guidance is required. Where discharge to the local sewerage network is proposed, evidence of correspondence with the respective water & sewerage company to demonstrate that a potential outfall connection is permitted is required. o Evidence that the proposed discharge, generated by all rainfall events up to and including the 100 year plus climate change, has been limited to the greenfield runoff rates for all return periods as far as reasonably practicable. o Calculations to demonstrate the performance of the drainage system for the 1 in 30yr and 1 in 100 year plus climate change return periods, in accordance with Environment Agency Climate Change Guidance (February 2016), including calculation of existing and proposed discharge rates and attenuation storage requirements. o Demonstrate the proposed allowance for exceedance flow and associated overland flow routing o Evidence that due consideration has been given to the ongoing operation & maintenance of the surface water drainage strategy for the life time of the development.

4.23 HDC Green Spaces Officer  The pitch is a suitable size for a senior pitch for either football or rugby  The car parking spaces provide for sufficient parking on match days.  The proposal indicate a 1/100 fall from north to south and 1/80 from the centre line across the pitch which are within FA and RFU guidelines.  The notes given for the landscape specification are generic for amenity areas etc. Sports pitch provision has very specific requirements. The permeability of the soil should be assessed and if it is impermeable then a suitable drainage system must be installed. It is recommended that a feasibility study and the detailed specification for the layout and construction of the pitch is provided.  The allotments site is approximately 2400m2, which is sufficient for 8 full size allotment plots at 300m2 each.

b) Local Community

4.24 Parish Council At the meeting held on Monday 14 August 2017 it was RESOLVED to SUPPORT this application with the following comments/questions:  the expected start date for commencement;  sufficiency of car parking to meet the needs of the sports field and the allotments;  confirmation that the proposed services provision to the site will include provision to the future changing facilities.

4.25 Thurnby and Bushby Society The Committee of the Thurnby And Bushby Society considers a sports pitch and allotments would be a welcome addition to local facilities. However, we object to this Application for the following reason.

4.26 The location is too remote These offsite facilities are just too remote and mostly beyond reasonable walking distance. This is especially so if carrying sports equipment or allotment owners carrying tools or produce. There is no provision of a storage facility for storing tools for the allotment users. The only vehicular access is from the application site. People coming from any direction but the east will not want to make the huge detour to

access the application site, but will park in the Jelson development and use the pedestrian link nearest the sports ground. This link is not legally secured and has a knee rail across it (ref 16/00874/REM revised plans). How will this cope with match days? The remoteness also causes concerns for personal safety especially that of children. Further there is the issue of determination of level of floodlighting to make the area more secure, with consideration on how this will affect the surrounding area.

4.27 Requirement of need for the proposed sport pitch It is noted that the Sport England email dated 13th July 2017 assumes that “the proposed sports pitch is required to meet a local policy requirement”. We would request confirmation that there has been an assessment in line with the guidance “Assessing need and opportunities guide for indoor and outdoor sports facilities” by Sport England. We would suggest that the proposed sport pitch is not providing the “right facilities in the right place” which any assessment should have discovered. The sports pitch appears to be football orientated and we would propose consideration of an anti-vandal multi use games area to cater for all ages and abilities, and not only for football. The Sport England email states that “Sport England is currently supporting the council in the development of a playing pitch strategy which will give a greater understanding of the need for sports pitches of all types to support the needs of existing residents and the demand generated by future developments”. We would request that this proposed sport pitch follows Sport England recommendations for the needs of this community.

4.28 Management, maintenance and long term funding Detailed information is required in respect of proposed management and maintenance agreements. This is not only relevant to the sports pitch and the changing facilities but also to the allotments. The sports pitch with the changing facilities will require ongoing management and maintenance especially in relation to prevention of accidents and personal safety. The allotments will require either a “green” caretaker or facilities manager or external contractor for management of the growing area. Brighton and Hove Council in their September 2011 Local Development Plan state “it is undesirable to create growing spaces which cannot be managed and become unsightly and unattractive. Therefore consideration of the ongoing management of the site is critical”. We believe this should also apply to Leicestershire’s growing spaces. Funding in relation to management and maintenance is crucial for the ongoing use of this site and detailed information is yet to be given.

4.29 Changing Area Facility There are no details to how this facility is to operate in relation to use. Security and safety of users have yet to be considered.

4.30 For the above reasons we urge you to refuse this Application in its present form.

4.31 Local Residents No objections have been received

5. Planning Policy Considerations

5.1 Please see above for planning policy considerations that apply to all agenda items.

a) Development Plan

o Harborough District Core Strategy (Adopted November 2011)

5.2 Relevant policies to this application are CS1, CS5, CS8, CS10, CS11 and CS17. These are detailed in the policy section at the start of the agenda.

b) Material Planning Considerations

o The National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) 5.3 Paragraphs 7, 11-14, 17, 30, 69, 70, 73 and 118, along with Chapter 4, 8 are particularly relevant.

o Supplementary Planning Guidance 5.4 The Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes that are relevant to this application are Note 6: Agricultural and Equestrian Buildings and Development for Sport and Recreation in the Countryside

o New Local Plan o The National Planning Policy Guidance

c) Other Relevant Information

o Reason for Committee Decision 5.5 This application is to be determined by Planning Committee due to the development area being in excess of 1 hectare.

6. Assessment

c) Principle of Development

6.1 The application site was identified as the preferred location for the sports provision required as a result of application 14/01088/OUT which was approved and granted outline consent for up to 275 dwellings and a retail store. The permission includes associated infrastructure, means of access, open space and landscaping. This consent was granted for the development of up to 275 dwellings on land at Charity Farm on 4th June 2015, following completion of the S106 Agreement to secure various elements and financial contributions associated with the development, specifically including the provision of public open space.

6.2 Schedule 2 of the S106 Agreement confirms a requirement to provide 1.1ha of sports facilities and 0.240625ha of allotments, and identifies the ‘Green Land’ as an area upon which the Open Space Land required in conjunction with the residential development can be provided. The Green Land identified in the S106 forms the current application site. The principle of development of the site for retail and housing has therefore been accepted.

d) Planning Considerations

1. Heritage Impact 6.3 The application site sits in the valley between the two settlements of Bushby and Scraptoft. As such, the site is relatively remote from the historic core of the settlements. The Thurnby and Bushby Conservation Area lies approximately 670m to the south, whilst the Scraptoft Conservation Area lies approximately 675m to the north west of the site. The closest Listed Building to the site is the Grade II Listed Scraptoft Hall which lies 850m to the north west of the site. Given the site’s remote distance from these Designated Heritage Assets, and the very limited inter-visibility

between them, it is not considered that the proposal would result in any harm to the designated heritage assets.

6.4 In consultation with LCC’s Archaeologist a geophysical survey and fieldwalking have been undertaken by the applicants to demonstrate whether there are any archaeological remains present. The relevant reports have been included in support of the application. The geophysical survey did not identified any anomalies of archaeological origin and evidence of ridge and furrow along with modern ploughing suggest the site has a largely agricultural past. The fieldwalking survey identified dispersed pottery finds, but no concentrations and a complete absence of Romano- British material. The archive, including finds, photographs and the associated report, are to be deposited with LCC Heritage Services.

6.5 On the basis of the above, it is considered that the proposal complies with para’s 132 and 141 of The Framework and Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy in terms of Heritage Impact.

2. Landscape and Visual Impact 6.6 Policy CS17c) provides several criteria to ensure that rural development will be located in a way that is sensitive to its landscape setting. Policy CS11 states that development should include an appropriate landscaping scheme.

Figure 7: Extract from Leicester PUA Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Capacity Study Addendum: Scraptoft (July 2016)

6.7 The Leicester PUA Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Capacity Study (LLCA- 2009) defines local character areas within High Leicestershire. The application site and the immediate surrounding area have many of the identified elements of the general character of this area including the topographical variation, agricultural use and key landscape features such as the hedgerows with mature trees and the brook. The wider area has a rural character, but the influence of the urban area of Leicester and suburban area of Thurnby and Bushby is apparent. The LLCA concludes that the landscape in the area has a moderate strength of character and is in moderate condition. It is, therefore, of moderate sensitivity with a general strategy to "improve and conserve".

6.8 More recently an Addendum to the LLCA has been prepared (July 2016) to consider the potential development capacity of the landscape around Scraptoft in more detail. The extent of the assessment area includes the land between Covert Lane and the stream. The application site is included in Parcel 42 (see Figure 7) which relates to the entire agricultural field that extends from the stream to Scraptoft Hill Farm to the north- east.

6.9 The assessment highlights that Land Parcel 42 is a large arable field defined by hedgerows with a distinctive landform. It concludes that it has a moderate strength of character and condition. It notes that the parcel has a semi-rural character that is visually influenced by neighbouring and more distant land uses. It continues to highlight a concern that built development on the parcel would be "evident" and result in the coalescence of Bushby and Scraptoft (even though it is not in the designated Area of Separation). It does, however, then acknowledge that once the committed built development on the adjacent sites to the west and south takes place, the parcel will be more suitable for development. The assessment concludes, therefore, that the parcel (as a whole) has "medium" capacity for (built) development and is considered suitable for built development.

6.10 The site lies within the High Leicestershire Character Area, and the Urban Fringe sub-area within it. The site is not subject to any landscape designation and does not contain any specific landscape features of acknowledged importance (although the periphery vegetation is of moderate quality and has local value). The landscape character of the area is semi-rural character, but it is visually influenced by the existing urban form. HDC’s recent landscape character and capacity study highlights the suitability of the site for built development, particularly once the committed built development on the adjacent sites to the west and south of the application site takes place.

6.11 Whilst the development of the site will result in the loss of part of an arable field on the edge of the settlement, the provision of public open space in this location in the stream valley adjacent to the committed development sites reflects the recommendations of the Council's Study. Moreover, the vast majority of the existing hedgerows and trees can be retained, and the application scheme provides a further opportunity to respond to the area's landscape character by providing additional tree planting that increases the number of higher quality and value trees around the site boundaries. The impact on the landscape character of the area arising from this proposal is, therefore, extremely limited.

6.12 The application site is visually very well contained as views from the surrounding area are limited by the urban form, topography and vegetation. Whilst it is visible to varying degrees from the public right of way network in the countryside on the higher ground to the north and along the stream valley to the east, there are no views of

particular value, and the views of the site tend to incorporate prominent existing urban elements within Thumby and Bushby and in some cases the wider Leicester urban area.

6.13 The proposed development of the application site will provide an unlit sports pitch and allotments framed by a landscaping scheme that reflects the local landscape character, including the planting of a number of semi-mature trees, and boundary treatments appropriate to its rural setting (see Figure 8). Where the scheme will be visible, it will viewed against a backdrop of the existing urban area, and in due course against the committed residential development on the adjacent sites to the south and west. In that regard the scheme will further soften the new urban edge to Thumby and Bushby. The impact on the visual amenity of the area arising from this proposal is, therefore, extremely limited.

Figure 8: Landscape Proposals

6.14 Based on the above, it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with Policies CS8, CS11 and CS17 in terms of visual impact issues.

3. Amenity Impact 6.15 Core Principle 4 of the Framework seeks to ensure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings and this is also reflected in Policy CS11.

6.16 The closest existing property to the football pitch (potentially the most noisiest part of the development) is approximately 73m to the south west of the proposed pitch area. There is a mature hedgerow separating the site from the property in this location. Whilst it is unlikely that the pitch will be visible from this property, it is acknowledged

that noise from the pitch could potentially be heard from the property. Notwithstanding this, it is not considered that any noise would be so significant or for such sustained periods of time so as to cause concerns regarding the amenity of the property. The closest proposed dwelling to the south is approximately 85m from the pitch area, and the closest proposed dwelling to the west is approximately 70m from the pitch location. Again, it is not considered that any noise would be so significant or for such sustained periods of time so as to cause concerns regarding the amenity of the future residents of these properties. Overall, the amenity impacts are considered acceptable, and the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policies CS11 and CS8 of the Core Strategy in terms of residential amenity.

4. Highways, access and parking 6.17 Policy CS5 states that proposals for assessing traffic impact, highway design and parking provision associated with new development should accord with the County Council guidance (6C’s guide). Policy CS11 states that development should be well planned to incorporate safe and inclusive design and encourage travel by a variety of modes of transport. The NPPF states that ‘development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe’.

Figure 9: Proposed site plan for 16/00874/REM indicating relationship between application site and adjacent development

6.18 The proposal would be accessed from the A47 via the proposed development at Charity Farm, for which Reserved Matters are currently being considered by HDC (see Figure 9). The phasing plan for the Reserved Matters indicates that the section of the development closest to the sports pitches will be the latter phase.

Figure 10: Proposed Access and Parking Arrangements

6.19 LCC Highways have commented that:  Further detail is required on the surface type proposed for the access road and parking areas. The plan submitted details “unbound free draining surface”. The 6Cs Design Guide would typically advise at least a 5m hardbound surface behind the highway boundary however the parking surface will need to be suitable for ongoing and year round use.  Parking proposed does not accord with the 6Cs design standards and should be justified against the maximum expected usage of the facility and include space for a coach.  Demarcation is advised to regularise the spaces and layout proposed and to ensure that the required manoeuvring space for a coach is available. The layout currently proposed with no demarcation is likely to lead to indiscriminate parking and which would prevent a coach from being able to access, park, turn and leave the site in a forward gear. The proposed parking layout provides space for 30 vehicles (see Figure 10). Given the level of allotment provision and the nature of the sports pitch to be provided, Officers are of the opinion that this is an acceptable level, and is commensurate with other similar provision within the District. Furthermore, Officer’s are of the opinion the proposed surfacing is relatively low key and less visually intrusive than a tarmac surface would be, and would also allow for infiltration of surface water rather than potentially increasing surface water run off from the site. The applicants have indicated that they would be happy to install a tarmac surface from the highway to the northern end of the bridge, therefore minimising the risk of detritus reaching the

highway (see Condition 5). LCC Highways Officer’s have verbally confirmed that this approach is acceptable.

6.19 Notwithstanding the initial concerns raised by LCC Highways, on the basis of the above, and subject to the conditions recommended, it is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with Policies CS5 and CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

5. Ecology 6.20 Policy CS8 relates to protecting and enhancing green infrastructure and part (d) relates to biodiversity. The NPPF states that when determining applications, the LPA should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity.

6.21 The site is not a designated ecological site. The ecology survey submitted in support of the application (RSK, May 2016) has ben assessed by LCC Ecology and is considered to be satisfactory. The report identifies the majority of the site as being an arable field, bounded by the south by a vegetated stream corridor. No protected species were recorded on site although a number of trees were assessed as having bat roost potential. It is not proposed that any of these trees would be removed. No lighting is proposed as part of the proposal, and as such there is no requirement to condition lighting level and locations.

6.22 On the basis of the above it is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with Policies CS8 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

6. Flood risk 6.23 The Framework requires that development be directed away from areas of highest flood risk. The site is within Flood Zone 1 (low risk). Policy CS10 adds that the use of SUDS will be expected and that surface water run off should be managed to minimise the net increase in the amount of surface water discharged into the local public sewer system.

6.24 The LLFA initially stated that the application documents as submitted are insufficient for the Lead Local Flood Authority to provide a detailed response at this stage. The LLFA were concerned regarding surface water run off and outfall into the brook, however, the applicants contend that they can demonstrate that, due to the application proposing no impermeable surfacing, with the sports pitch surfaced with grass and naturally draining, and all access and parking areas laid with a free- draining granular surface as outlined in Section 4 above, an FRA is not necessary and that all related matters can be addressed through a construction method statement

6.25 Following discussions between representatives of the LLFA and the applicants (see Para 3.6) it has been agreed that this is the case, and, subject to the imposition of suitable conditions, the LLFA raise no objection to the proposal.

7. Other matters raised  Start date 6.26 Concerns have been raised by the Parish Council regarding when construction of the site will commence. As set out above, this will be dictated by the progress of the development, however, an obligation of the S106 Agreement under which these facilities were secured was that an Open Space Specification for open space works and maintenance standards shall be agreed for each development parcel prior to development commencing on that parcel. Furthermore, No more than 70% of units

on a parcel are to be occupied before the open space is completed. The sports pitches and allotments form part of Phase 4 of the development (see Figure 11), and as such, as required by the S106 Agreement, will be delivered prior to the completion of the residential development

Figure 11: Phasing Plan for 16/00874/REM

 Changing facilities 6.27 The proposal does not include the provision of changing facilities, rather, space is being provided adjacent to the parking area where changing facilities could be provided in the future. Changing facilities are a requirement for Senior level football teams playing at local league level, and as such, it is anticipated that such provision may be required at a future date. Funding for such a project could come from the S106 community facilities contributions for the adjacent developments subject to a bid being made by the interested parties. A condition is recommended to ensure that services are provided to the site for the future use of the facility.

7. Conclusion / Planning Balance

7.1 Subject to the confirmation that LCC Highways and the LLFA do not object to the proposal, the proposed development is considered to meet the relevant Development Plan policies. The proposed facilities address an identified need as addressed in the S106 Agreement for 14/01088/OUT. There are no material considerations which

indicate against the proposal. The application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions as set out in Section 8.

8. Suggested Conditions

8.1 If Members are minded to approve the application, Officers recommend that the following conditions are atached to any approval:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON: To accord with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with the following approved plans:  Red Line Plan (Ref. DE071_009 Rev B)  Topographical Survey (Bushby Sports_2D Rev 0)  Proposed Site Layout including access (Ref. 15025 003 Rev E)  Landscape Proposals Plan (Ref. 6633-L-1017 Rev B)  Site Sections (Ref. 15025 006 Rev A)  Site Levels and Earthworks Plan (Ref. 15025 007)

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt.

3. No development shall commence on site until details of the design, external appearance and decorative finish of all railings, fences, gates, walls, bollards and other means of enclosure have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained as such in perpetuity.

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area and to accord with the Harborough District Council Core Strategy Policy CS11.

4. No development shall commence on site until details of the provision for the storage of refuse and materials for recycling shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences on site. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained as such in perpetuity.

REASON: To ensure the adequate provision of facilities and in the interests of visual/general amenity and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11

5. No development shall commence on site until full details of the means of surface water drainage for the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained in perpetuity.

REASON: To ensure the satisfactory drainage of the site and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS10

6. Before first use of the development hereby permitted, its access drive shall be surfaced with tarmacadam, concrete or similar hard bound material (not loose aggregate) from the Highway boundary to the northernmost extent of the bridge and thereafter be permanently so maintained.

REASON: To reduce the possibility of deleterious material being deposited in the highway (loose stones etc.) and to Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11

7. If any vehicular access gates, barriers, bollards, chains or other such obstructions are to be erected they shall be set back a minimum distance of 10 metres behind the Highway boundary and shall be hung so as to open inwards only.

REASON: To enable a vehicle to stand clear of the highway in order to protect the free and safe passage of traffic, including pedestrians, in the public highway and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11

8. The parking provision shown on the permitted plan shall be constructed and made available for use before the development is brought into use and shall be retained thereafter for this purpose on a permanent basis.

REASON: To ensure that adequate parking facilities are provided and maintained to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11

9. All soft landscaping comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the first occupation of the building(s) or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; All shrubs, trees and hedge planting shall be maintained free from weeds and shall be protected from damage by vermin and stock. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from the date of first occupation of the development , die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. All hard landscaping shall also be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with a programme to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure a satisfactory landscaped setting for the development and the protection of existing important landscape features and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11

10. No external lighting shall be installed on the sports pitches hereby approved.

REASON: To prevent intrusive light pollution that is out of keeping with the character of the area and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11

11. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007, no advertisements shall be placed on the perimeter of the hereby approved sports pitches

REASON: In the interests of the visual amenity and the surrounding area and to ensure compliance with Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

12. Prior to the first use of the hereby approved sports pitches, Services (ie Water, Drainage and Electricity) small be made available to the site.

REASON: In order to ensure that any future changing facility is reasonably provided for and to ensure compliance with CS12 of the Harborough District Core Strategy

Planning Committee Report

Applicant: Penland Estates Ltd Application Ref: 17/00416/OUT Location: Land at Langton Road, Great Bowden, Leicestershire Proposal: Outline planning application for the erection of 6 dwellings with associated garages (all matters are reserved, except for access). Application Validated: 24.03.2017 Target Date: 19.05.2017 (Extension of time agreed until 22nd September 2017). Consultation Expiry Date: 24.07.2017 Site Visit Date: 07.04.2017 Case Officer: Jeremy Eaton Recommendation

Planning Permission is APPROVED for the reasons set out within this report, and subject to Planning Conditions and Informative Notes (see Appendix A).

Recommended Justification Statement:

The development hereby approved is contrary to the Development Plan as it proposes housing development in the open countryside; however, the housing policies of the Development Plan are out-of-date, by virtue of the Council not being able to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites, in which case the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as per Paragraph 14 of the NPPF, should be applied.

The development would, through the loss of this greenfield land, result in limited and localised harm to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. However, this harm can be reduced in the longer-term through robust landscape mitigation. Furthermore, in respect of designated heritage assets and non-designated archaeological assets, the adjoining Great Bowden Conservation Area and ridge and furrow earthworks respectively, the scale of harm resulting from the proposed development is limited; in the case of the archaeological remains, the available evidence suggests any likely remains won’t be of such significance as to represent an obstacle to development. The identified harm to the countryside and designated/non-designated heritage assets has been weighed against the public benefits of the proposal in accordance with Paragraph 134 of the NPPF. The public benefits include social benefits of market housing, economic investment in the local area. In addition, there are no technical reasons, for example highway safety, heritage assets, ecological, flood risk/drainage and residential amenity, to withhold planning permission. On balance, the adverse impacts of the development are not considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

Despite the conflict with Policies CS2(a) and CS17(a) of the Harborough District Core Strategy, with appropriate mitigation where required, it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with the up-to-date elements of Policies CS1, CS2, CS3, CS5, CS8, CS9, CS10, CS11 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy and “saved” Policy HS/8 of the Harborough District Local Plan. The proposal represents

64 sustainable development which accords with the NPPF, and the decision has been reached taking into account Paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF.

1. Site & Surroundings

1.1 The application site comprises a field parcel, approximately 0.6 Ha in extent, located to the eastern side of Langton Road, north of the village of Great Bowden, Leicestershire. The application site is located outwith, but immediately adjoining the Development Limits of Great Bowden.

1.2 The site is currently occupied for equestrian purposes and is predominately used for the grazing of horses/ponies. A stable building is located to the north-western corner of the application site.

1.3 The topography of the application site is relatively flat, with a small gradient which rises from 76.71m above ordnance datum (AOD) to the north, to 79.30m AOD to the south of the site.

1.4 The appication site is defined to the north, east and west by hedgerows containing trees, whilst the southern boundary of the site is defined by a variety of fence types.

1.5 Vehicular/pedestrian access to the application site is achieved directly off of Langton Road via an existing field access located to the north-western corner of the site.

1.6 A mix of agricultural land borders the application site to the north and east; however, planning permission (reference 16/02083/REM) was recently granted, on 4th May 2017, for a residential development of 50 no. dwellings on this land. Existing residential properties border the site to the south on Welham Road. The wider village settlement lies to the south of the site.

1.7 Approximately 60m-90m to the west of the application site is the Leicester to London St Pancras Main Railway Line, operated by East Midlands Trains.

1.8 The application site lies outwith the Great Bowden Conservation Area, albeit its boundary adjoins a small section of the eastern boundary of the application site.

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

2. Site History

2.1 The application site has previously been the subject of the following planning history:

o MU/06089/MUDC - The erection of a field gate and formation of access (06089) – Approved (12.07.1966).

3. The Application Submission

a) Summary of Proposals

3.1 This application seeks outline planning permission for a residential development of 6 no. dwellings with associated infrastructure, including means of access which is proposed via the creation of a new vehicular access to Langton Road.

3.2 With the exception of the means of access, matters of Layout, Scale, Appearance and Landscaping are reserved for later consideration.

3.3 This application is accompanied by an Illustrative Masterplan (see Figure 2, below).

Figure 2: Illustrative Masterplan

b) Documents submitted

i. Plans

3.4 The application has been accompanied by the following plans:

 Drawing No. 111465/001 (Site & Location Plan: As Existing);  Drawing No. 111465/002A (Indicative Masterplan) (now superseded);  Drawing No. 111465/002B (Indicative Masterplan) (now superseded);  Drawing No. 111465/002C (Indicative Masterplan);  Drawing No. 16216-Topo (Sheet 1 of 2) (Topographical Survey);  Drawing No. 16216-Topo (Sheet 2 of 2) (Topographical Survey);  Drawing No. 2969TCP (Tree Constraints Plan); and  Drawing No. 001 Rev C (Indicative Site Access Layout).

i. Documents

3.5 The application has been accompanied by the following documentation:

 Design & Access Statement;  Tree Survey;  Noise Assessment (reference 122057.01.v2);  Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment;  Landscape & Visual Appraisal;  Transport Statement; and  Ecology and Bat Survey Report.

c) Pre-application Engagement

 Local Planning Authority

3.6 Prior to submitting this planning application, the proposed development was the subject of a pre-application enquiry, submitted to the Local Planning Authority in October 2016, with a meeting held with Officers thereafter on 27th October 2016. Written Officer advice was received on 22nd December 2016. The Officer made a series of comments in relation to the principle of development along with design and layout of the proposed development. In addition, the Officer advised in respect of accompanying information which would be required in support of any future planning application.

3.7 Following the Written Officer advice, a further meeting was held with Officers on 6th February 2017 to discuss potential amendments in line with the previous advice received. This meeting was not followed up with any formal Written Officer advice.

 Local Community

3.8 It is understood that the Applicant did not undertake any form of engagement with the local community of Great Bowden prior to the submission of this planning application.

4. Consultations and Representations

4.1 Consultation with technical consultees and the local community was carried out on the application.

4.2 A Site Notice was displayed outside the application site on Langton Road on 7th April 2017, and a Press Notice was published in the Harborough Mail on 13th April 2017.

4.3 A summary of the technical consultee responses received is set out below. If you wish to view the comments in full, please go to: www.harborough.gov.uk/planning

a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees

Great Bowden Parish Council 4.4 No comments received.

Harborough District Council (Environmental Health) 4.5 As part of the application, a noise assessment has been submitted in support by the applicant. A number of recommendations are made and should be incorporated into the design although it is not clear what works is considered essential to ensure that noise will not be an issue for occupants – e.g., double boarding bedroom ceilings, whether rooms will be in the roof, etc. This information should be clarified in future applications.

Harborough District Council (Technical Services – Drainage) 4.6 No comments received.

Harborough District Council (Conservation Officer) 4.7 In light of the development approved on the adjacent land I don’t believe this proposal will result in additional harm to the setting of the Conservation area and therefore have no objections to the principle of developing this land. Leicestershire County Council (Highways)

4.8 The Local Highway Authority advice is that, in its view the residual cumulative impacts of development can be mitigated and are not considered severe in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF, subject to the Conditions outlined in this report.

Following the County Highway Authority’s previous formal advice of the 14th July, the applicant has submitted the revised access and off-site highway works drawing number 001 REV C. This drawing details a revised access design and footway provision in line with the requirements set out in the County Highway Authority’s previous response. The County Highway Authority would therefore not seek to resist the proposed development and would advise inclusion of the below conditions should planning permission be granted.

No comment is made on the indicative layout shown given layout is a reserved matter and not therefore subject to consideration at this juncture.

Conditions 9-11 and 22 and Informatives 4-6, Appendix A have been suggested in the event that the Local Planning Authority grant outline planning permission.

Leicestershire County Council (Footpaths) 4.9 No comments received.

Leicestershire County Council (Principal Ecologist) 4.10 I have no objections in principle to this application, and the ecology report (Quants, Sept 16) is satisfactory. No protected species or evidence of such living on site or potentially impacted by the development were identified.

One tree, along the eastern boundary, is a good wildlife feature, and meets our criteria for designation as a Local Wildlife Site, as a veteran tree. It appears on the layout with a pair of garages situated underneath. This seems inappropriate, and I think would only lead to the loss of the tree in future - either due to a branch falling on the garages, or fears that this will happen.

I recommend therefore that the layout is amended to move these two garages out of the branch' drop-zone' of the tree.

I have a holding objection pending revision to the masterplan to protect the tree.

A further consultation response was received:

The garages have now been moved from under the crown of the veteran ash trees, and I can therefore withdraw my objection to this scheme.

Leicestershire County Council (Senior Forestry Team Leader) 4.11 The arboricultural report and plan supplies the necessary detail to inform an acceptable layout. The provision of crown-spread and root-protection area information guides the appropriate distances between any new houses and the trees to be retained. The indicative layout generally keps development away from nearby trees.

The best tree is a sycamore (NT3) just off-site, and this is given good spacing by the suggested open space area nearby. The largest tree, an ash (2371) has some defects and in in declining condition, so has been accorded a low retention category, and the report schedule correctly notes that its safe retention would depend on remedial pruning. I think this may well be on adjacent land as well.

On the Langton Road frontage, there are two ash trees (NTS6/7) which could have further growth potential, and I would suggest that any proposed houses are distanced further from these particular trees than indicated on the outline plan (assuming that retention is preferred).

Leicestershire County Council (Archaeologist) 4.12 Thank you for your consultation on this application, and note the preparation of a desk-based assessment of the archaeological issues prepared for the applicant by Cotswold Archaeology (CA ref.: 16704) We recommend that you advise the applicant of the following archaeological requirements.

Whilst no known archaeological remains have been recorded from the development area itself, appraisal of the Leicestershire and Rutland Historic Environment Record (HER) notes that the site lies adjacent to the northern edge of the medieval and post- medieval settlement core of Great Bowden (HER ref.: MLE9021). Various medieval and post-medieval finds have been recorded in the vicinity (MLE21581, 21598, 21599 & 21614) indicating the presence of associated activity and settlement. In addition Neolithic and Bronze Age artefacts have been recorded to the south of the present site (MLE21625), it is possible that remains of these earlier periods may extend into the development area.

Recent trial trenching to the east of the application area failed to locate significant archaeological remains over much of the application area, but did not fully investigate the more significant southern edge of the site (which lay outside the built extent of the proposals). The latter area presents a greater potential for medieval and early post- medieval archaeological remains owing to its proximity to the historic settlement.

In accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 129, assessment of the submitted development details and particular archaeological interest of the site, has indicated that the proposals are likely to have a detrimental impact upon any heritage assets present. NPPF paragraph 141, states that developers are required to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact of development. In that context it is recommended that the current application is approved subject to conditions for an appropriate programme of archaeological mitigation, including as necessary intrusive and non- intrusive investigation and recording.

If planning permission is granted the applicant must obtain a suitable written scheme of Investigation (WSI) for both phases of archaeological investigation from an organisation acceptable to the planning authority. The WSI should comply with relevant Chartered Institute for Archaeologists’ (CIfA) “Standards” and “Code of Practice”. It should include a suitable indication of arrangements for the implementation of the archaeological work, and the proposed timetable for the development.

We therefore recommend that any planning permission be granted subject to the following planning conditions (informed by paragraph 37 of Historic England’s Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment GPA 2), to safeguard any important archaeological remains potentially present:

1) No demolition/development shall take place/commence until a programme of archaeological work including a Written Scheme of Investigation has been submitted

to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and:

The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording The programme for post investigation assessment Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation.

2) No demolition/development shall take place other than in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition (1).

3) The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition (1) and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory archaeological investigation and recording

The Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) must be prepared by an archaeological contractor acceptable to the Planning Authority. To demonstrate that the implementation of this written scheme of investigation has been secured the applicant must provide a signed contract or similar legal agreement between themselves and their approved archaeological contractor.

The Historic and Natural Environment Team, as advisors to the planning authority, will monitor the archaeological work, to ensure that the necessary programme of archaeological work is undertaken to the satisfaction of the planning authority.

Please will you ensure a copy of the Decision Notice is sent to us in due course, to enable us to continue to monitor and safeguard the archaeology of this site. Should you or the applicant have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

Leicestershire County Council (Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA)) 4.13 The above detailed planning application is not considered to be major, as such the LLFA are not a statutory consultee and have no comment in relation to this application. Please find a copy of the LLFA's standing advice attached.

Anglian Water 4.14 The Pre-Development Team provide comments on planning applications for major proposals of 10 dwellings or more, or if an industrial or commercial development, more than 0.5 ha.

As your query is below this threshold we will not be providing comments. However, if there are specific issues you would like us to respond to, please contact us outlining the details.

b) Local Community

4.15 This application has generated a significant level of objection from the local community. To date, 37 no. letters of objection have been received. The Case Officer acknowledges that the representations received are very detailed and whilst regard has been had to these in assessing this application, it is impractical to copy these verbatim and, therefore, a summary of the key points/concerns, in no particular order, is provided below:

 Harborough District Council has already granted planning permission for a significant level of residential dwellings (148 no.) in Great Bowden, which represents a 30% increase in the size of the village. For a village of this scale, there is no further need for residential development, as outlined within the evidence base for the emerging Great Bowden Neighbourhood Plan;  The site has not been selected as a preferred development site within the emerging Great Bowden Neighbourhood Plan;  Pre-empting the outcome of the Neighbourhood Plan;  Great Bowden has been identified by Harborough District Council as a Select Rural Village suitable for only minimal development.  Great Bowden is already approximately 37% over its housing allocation identified within the Harborough District Core Strategy.  Loss of open countryside, and development on greenfield land which is located outwith the Development Limits of Great Bowden;  Loss/impact on Green Belt land;  Visual impact on the village and landscape;  Erosion of the village character of Great Bowden;  Loss of equine facilities;  The site incorporates a mature ash tree which is identified within the emerging Great Bowden Neighbourhood Plan as a site of ecological importance (NP ID Reference ES18) and is a candidate Local Wildlife Site under Leicestershire & Rutland Environmental Records Centre (LRERC Reference 91408);  Loss of wildlife;  Flood risk;  No 5.0m buffer along the southern boundary to neighbouring properties;  Impact on neighbouring properties residential amenity (loss of light and privacy);  Proposed access off Langton Road and the associated traffic implications and highway safety concerns this will have on the surrounding roads and the village itself;  The proposed vehicular access would not be suitable to cater for larger vehicles, e.g. bin lorries, etc.;  No footpath provision along Langton Road, from the application site to the existing village;  Insufficient off-street car parking provision for the proposed dwellings;  Impact on local infrastructure/services (notably the primary school);  The proposal does not demonstrate how it fulfils the criterion for Sustainable Development as outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework.

5. Planning Policy Considerations

5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that “where in making any determination under the Planning Acts, regard is to be had to the Development Plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”

5.2 Unless stated, an explanation of the development plan policies; material considerations, evidence base and other documents referred to can be found at the beginning of the Agenda under ‘All Agenda Items Common Planning Policy’.

a) Development Plan

5.2 The current Local Development Plan consists of the Local Development Framework Harborough District Core Strategy 2006-2028 (adopted November 2011) and “saved policies” of the Harborough District Local Plan (adopted 2001).

Harborough District Core Strategy

5.3 The following policies are considered to be relevant to this application:

 Policy CS1 (Spatial Strategy);  Policy CS2 (Delivering New Housing);  Policy CS5 (Providing Sustainable Transport);  Policy CS8 (Protecting and Enhancing Green Infrastructure);  Policy CS9 (Addressing Climate Change);  Policy CS10 (Addressing Flood Risk);  Policy CS11 (Promoting Design and Built Heritage); and  Policy CS17 (Countryside, Rural Centres and Rural Villages.

Harborough District Local Plan (“saved policies”)

5.4 Of the limited policies which remain extant, the following policy is considered to be relevant to this application:

 Policy HS/8 (Limits to Development).

b) Material Planning Considerations

5.5 Material Planning Considerations relevant to this application are:

 The National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework/NPPF);  National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG);  Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes 1, 4,9-11, 13 and 19;  Five-Year Housing Land Supply Statement;

 Market Harborough Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Capacity Study (April 2016):

A total of 42 different land parcels were assessed at Market Harborough and Great Bowden. The application site is located within Land Parcel No. 7, and is assessed as having ‘Medium’ landscape capacity for new development.

 Emerging Great Bowden Neighbourhood Plan;

Great Bowden Parish Council applied for the designation of a Neighbourhood Area on 29th September 2015 under the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012. The application was published for a 6-week period ending on 27th November 2015, and was approved by the Portfolio Holder for Planning Services on 5th December 2015.

Since December 2015, work has been progressing on the Neighbourhood Plan. The Plan has recently reached the Pre-Submission consultation stage (Regulation 14). The Neighbourhood Plan was published for a 6-week period ending on 26th July 2017.

The emerging Neighbourhood Plan carries moderate weight at the present time.

 Emerging Harborough District Local Plan;

 Settlement Profile (May 2015):

Great Bowden has the services to support its continued designation as a Selected Rural Village. With 4 out of the 6 key services it has the level of services to become a Rural Centre. Whether Rural Centre status is appropriate given its location close to Market Harborough will need to be considered further. It has the capacity to accommodate growth but there are constraints which could impact on the delivery of sites. Development would need to be sympathetic to the village’s numerous heritage assets, the Welland Valley landscape setting, traffic concerns and to any specific housing needs of the village.

 Great Bowden Village Design Statement (2000);

 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment;

The site is identified in the SHLAA as being potentially suitable; available and achievable for residential development (Ref: A/GB/HSG/19).

 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) (2014); and

The Assessment concluded that Harborough’s priority should be to ease its ‘extreme market housing affordability’, support the provision of additional affordable housing and support growth in employment / labour supply. Its overall conclusions were that the highest demand in market housing was for 2/3 bed market houses and 1/2 bed affordable homes.

 HEDNA (2017).

c) Other Relevant Documents

5.6 The following documents should be noted:

 Circular 11/95 Annex A – Use of Conditions in Planning Permission;  ODPM Circular 06/2005 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System);  Manual for Streets (2007) and Manual for Streets 2 (2010);  Building for Life 12 (BFL12) (2012);  Leicestershire County Council Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3); and  Leicestershire County Council Highways Authority 6Cs (Highways) Design Guide.

d) Other Relevant Information

Reason for Committee Decision

5.7 This application is to be determined by Planning Committee following a call-in request was received by Councillor Knowles.

6. Assessment

a) Principle of Development

6.1 The application site is located outwith but immediately adjacent to the Development Limits of Great Bowden (a Selected Rural Village) as established under “saved” Policy HS8 of the Harborough District Local Plan. For planning assessment purposes, the application site represents un-developed (greenfield) land within the open countryside.

6.2 Policy CS2 of the Harborough District Core Strategy states:

“The overall housing provision of at least 7,700 dwellings between 2006-2028 will be distributed as follows: …  Rural Centres and selected rural villages at least 2,420 dwellings.

a) Limits to Development boundaries around settlements will be used to shape their future development as follows: …  Housing development will not be permitted outside Limits to Development … unless at any point there is less than a five year supply of deliverable housing sites and the proposal is in keeping with the scale and character of the settlement concerned.”

6.3 Policy CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy states:

“Outside these rural settlements (which includes Great Bowden as a Selected Rural Village), new development in the Countryside … will be strictly controlled.

Only development required for the purposes of agriculture, woodland management, sport and recreation, local food initiatives, support visits to the District and renewable energy production will be appropriate in the Countryside subject to compliance with other relevant policies in this Strategy.”

6.4 Harborough District Council is unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites. This is outlined within the Council’s ‘5 Year Housing Land Supply 1st April 2017 to 31 March 2022’ Position Update dated 12th July 2017, which indicates a supply of 4.86 years.

6.5 Paragraph 49 of the NPPF advises “that housing applications should be considered in the context of sustainable development”, and that the “relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.” In this case, “relevant policies” would include Policies CS2 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy, as well as “saved” Policy HS8 of the Harborough District Local Plan.

6.6 The Court of Appeal gave judgment on 17th March 2016 in the combined appeals of Suffolk Coastal District Council v. Hopkins Homes Limited and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and Richborough Estates Partnership LLP v. Cheshire East Borough Council and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWCA Civ. 168 addressing the meaning and effect of Paragraph 49 of the NPPF. Among other things, it held that “[relevant] policies for the supply of housing”, meant “relevant policies that affect the supply of housing” and so including:

“‘[…]policies whose effect is to influence the supply of housing land by restricting the locations where new housing may be developed—including, for example, policies for the Green Belt, policies for the general protection of the countryside, policies for conserving the landscape of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks, policies for the conservation of wildlife or cultural heritage, and various policies whose purpose is to protect the local environment in one way or another by preventing or limiting development’ (Lindblom LJ, para [33]).”

6.7 Such restrictive policies may have the effect of constraining the supply of housing land, in which event if a Local Planning Authority is unable to demonstrate the requisite five-year supply of deliverable housing sites then relevant policies are liable to be regarded as not up-to-date for the purposes of Paragraph 49 of the NPPF, and so out-of-date for the purposes of Paragraph 14 of the NPPF (the presumption in favour of sustainable development).

6.8 Furthermore, the Supreme Court gave judgement on 10th May 2017 in connection with an appeal against the decision reached by The Court of Appeal dated 17th March 2016 in respect of the Suffolk Coastal District Council v. Hopkins Homes Limited and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government appeal, further addressing the meaning and effect of Paragraph 49 of the NPPF. Among other things, it held that:

“The important question is not to define individual policies, but whether the result is a five-year supply in accordance with the objectives set by paragraph 47. If there is a failure in that respect, it matters not whether the failure is because of the inadequacies of the policies specifically concerning with housing provision, or because of the over-restrictive nature of other non-housing policies. The shortfall is enough to trigger the operation of the second part of paragraph 14”

6.9 Notwithstanding the above, that is not an end to the matter, because if a policy is caught by Paragraph 49 of the NPPF, that doesn’t render it meaningless; it still forms part of the Development Plan as the Judgment (17th March 2016) makes clear at Paragraph 42:

“The NPPF is a policy document. It ought not to be treated as if it had the force of statute. It does not, and could not, displace the statutory “presumption in favour of the development plan”, as Lord Hope described it in City of Edinburgh Council v Secretary of State for Scotland [1997] 1 W.L.R. 1447 at 1450B-G). Under section 70(2) of the 1990 Act and section 38(6) of the 2004 Act, government policy in the NPPF is a material consideration external to the development plan. Policies in the NPPF, including those relating to the “presumption in favour of sustainable development”, do not modify the statutory framework for the making of decisions on applications for planning permission. They operate within that framework…It is for the decision-maker to decide what weight should be given to NPPF policies in so far as they are relevant to the proposal”.

6.10 Importantly, the Court said the weight to be given to ‘out-of-date’ development plan policy will vary according to the circumstances, “including, for example, the extent to which relevant policies fall short of providing for the five-year supply of housing land, the action being taken by the local planning authority to address it, or the particular purpose of a restrictive policy”. The Court emphasised that ‘weight’ is always a matter of planning judgment for the decision-maker.

6.11 Limits to Development were adopted some 16-years ago, in the context of different national planning policy and based on now out-of-date housing need evidence. “Saved” Policy HS/8 of the Harborough District Local Plan, as well as aspects of Development Plan policies which reference this policy (e.g. Policy CS2 (a) and elements of CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy), represent restrictive blanket policies on new housing development outside Limits; taken literally, such policies limit new housing development to within the 2001 defined Limits to Development of Great Bowden. “Saved” Policy HS/8 is inconsistent with relevant policies on sustainable housing development contained in the NPPF. Moreover, the Council resolved (December 2012) that the Core Strategy was not compliant with the NPPF on several grounds and that it should prepare a new Local Plan to replace it. The emerging Local Plan puts forward a criteria-based policy in substitution of defined limits altogether.

6.12 Having full regard to the recent Judgements, Officers consider that limited weight should be given to “saved” Policy HS/8 of the Harborough District Local Plan, and Policy CS2 (a) and elements of Policy CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

6.13 In circumstances where relevant policies are out-of-date, Paragraph 14 of the NPPF is engaged. Paragraph 14 advises that the presumption in favour of sustainable development means that permission should be granted unless “any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.” Footnote 9 of the NPPF gives examples of those policies. One of those policies is identified as relating to “designated heritage assets”.

6.14 The reference to designated heritage assets in footnote 9 means that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is not triggered unless the proposal can first pass the simple balancing exercises outlined in Paragraph 133 (in cases where any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset is judged to be substantial) or Paragraph 134 (where any harm is less than substantial) of the NPPF.

6.15 As such, in terms of decision-making, an assessment is first required as to whether or not any harm is caused to the significance of the designated heritage assets affected. If any harm is found, then the degree of that harm needs to be defined. Then that harm needs to be balanced against the public benefits of the proposal. If the public benefits do not outweigh the harm, planning permission should be refused, having regard to the Development Plan and Statute.

6.16 If public benefits outweigh the harm caused to the significance of the designated heritage assets, then Paragraph 14 of the NPPF would be re-engaged. That would mean that in terms of the NPPF, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF, taken as a whole.

6.17 Decision-takers, in this case the Local Planning Authority, as also required by the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended), are to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any special features of architectural or historic interest which it possesses (Section 66(1)) and to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area in relation to Conservation Areas (Section 72(1)).

6.18 Mirroring those provisions, to a large extent, Paragraph 132 of the NPPF advises that “when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.”

b) Heritage Assets

6.19 An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, prepared by Cotswold Archaeology, dated December 2016, was submitted in support of this planning application.

6.20 The Assessment report confirms that the north-western corner of the Great Bowden Conservation Area abuts the south-eastern corner of the application site; however, there are no other designated heritage assets (e.g. Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments, Registered Battlefields or Parks and Gardens) within, or within close proximity of, the application site.

6.21 With respect to non-designated heritage assets, the Assessment report outlined that Lidar imagery indicates evidence of ridge and furrow earthworks on the application site, albeit only slight remains were observed during the walkover survey of the site. Paragraph 4.21 of the report states:

“The Site would have comprised part of the agricultural hinterland of the medieval settlement of Great Bowden. Traces of ridge and furrow earthworks are visible on lidar imagery of the Site (see Fig. 4). They are of a different alignment to the ridge and furrow visible in the adjacent fields to the north and to the east, indicating that they post-date the formation of these field boundaries (see Section 4.22); and thus are likely to derive from post-medieval ploughing – which would have removed any ridge and furrow deriving from medieval ploughing. Only slight undulations of the ground surface were observed during the walkover survey of the Site.”

6.22 Paragraph 131 of the NPPF states “in determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account off:

● the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; ● the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and ● the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.”

6.23 Paragraph 132 of the NPPF continues to state “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through

alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.”

6.24 Paragraph 133 of the NPPF states “Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:

● the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and ● no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and ● conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and ● the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.”

6.25 Paragraph 134 of the NPPF continues to state “Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.”

6.26 Paragraph 137 of the NPPF states “Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas … and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably.”

6.27 Policy CS11 (Promoting Design and Built Heritage) of the Harborough District Core Strategy requires proposals for development to exhibit a high standard of design to “create attractive places for people to live, work and visit.” To meet these requirements, proposed development should “be inspired by, respect and enhance local character, building materials and distinctiveness of the area in which it would be situated.” In addition, development “should respect the context in which it is taking place and respond to the unique characteristics of the individual site and wider local environment beyond the site’s boundaries to ensure that it is integrated as far as possible into the existing built form of the District.”

6.28 With regard to heritage assets, this policy states “heritage assets within the District, and their setting, will be protected, conserved and enhanced, ensuring that residents and visitors can appreciate and enjoy them through”.:

6.29 National and local planning policy does not prohibit new development within or adjacent to a Conservation Area or within the setting of heritage assets. In this case, the protection, conservation and enhancement of these designated heritage assets are essential, as is the desirability of a proposed development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

6.30 Although the matter of design (form/layout, mass, scale, proportions, style, materials) of the proposed development is not a matter which is currently for consideration at this time, and will be tested at the Reserved Matters stage in the event that Outline Planning Permission is granted, an illustrative masterplan (Figure 2) has been submitted in support of this application, which together with supporting information contained within the Planning, Design and Access Statement, demonstrates how the application site could be developed, taking into account the constraints of the

application site. It should be noted; however, that it does not preclude alternative layouts as part of a subsequent Reserved Matters or detailed Planning Application.

6.31 Harborough District Council’s Conservation Officer has been consulted on this application. No objection has been raised. The Officer’s comments outline that in view of the recent grant of planning permission (reference 16/02083/REM) for a major residential development on neighbouring land, adjoining the eastern boundary of the application site, it is considered that the proposed development would unlikely result in additional harm to the setting of the adjoining Great Bowden Conservation Area.

6.32 With regard to the non-designated heritage assets, in this case the ridge and furrow earthwork archaeological remains, and potential for as yet to be discovered remains of various medieval and post-medieval origin and earlier periods, it is considered that the proposed development would likely destroy any non-designated heritage assets present on-site.

6.33 Notwithstanding the above, Leicestershire County Council’s Archaeology department were consulted on this application. No objection has been raised; however, conditions requiring further on-site archaeological investigation, in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, has been requested (see Conditions 16-18, Appendix A) in the event that outline planning permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority. In this event, it is suggested that any adverse impact upon any non-designated heritage assets present on-site would be appropriately mitigated.

6.34 In view of the above, Officers are of the opinion that the proposed development would result in less than substantial harm to the designated and non-designated heritage assets.

6.35 In line with Paragraph 134 of the NPPF, this “less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset … should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal”.

6.36 The public benefits of the proposed development are outlined within Section i) of this report. In this case, Officers consider that the public benefits of the proposal would outweigh any potential harm to the designated and non-designated heritage assets. Accordingly, it is considered that the “presumption in favour of sustainable development”, as per paragraph 14 of the NPPF, is triggered.

6.37 The conformity of the proposed development to the criteria for sustainability is considered throughout the remainder of this report.

c) Locational Sustainability

 Services & Facilities

6.38 Paragraph 55 of the NPPF states “To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.”

6.39 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) recognises that rural housing is essential to ensure the viable use of local services.

6.40 Policy CS5 of the Harborough District Core Strategy supports new development that is located in areas well served by local services which reduces the need to travel for occupants.

6.41 Great Bowden is currently identified within the Harborough District Core Strategy as a Selected Rural Village. Notwithstanding this, it is noted that Great Bowden could potentially be upgraded to a Rural Centre based on its available services and facilities; however, Chapter 4 of the Options Consultation document of the emerging Local Plan states “owing to its close relationship with Market Harborough”, Great Bowden “does not perform a Rural Centre role”.

6.42 The Transport Statement (paragraph 6.1.1) submitted in support of this application outlines a list of local amenities and facilities available within Great Bowden, and their approximate distance from the application site:

 Great Bowden C of E Primary School (560m/0.56km);  Village Hall (500m/0.5km);  Great Bowden Parish Church (560m/0.56km);  Bowdens Store (475m/0.475km);  Weltons Deli (including Shop/Café/Post Office and ATM) (450m/0.45km); and  Red Lion Public House (400m/0.4km).

6.43 Notwithstanding the above, the Transport Statement (paragraphs 6.1.4 and 6.1.5) outlines a list of local amenities and facilities available within Market Harborough and their approximate distance from the application site:

 Robert Smyth Academy (just over 2000m/2.0km); and  Market Harborough Town Centre (2600m/2.6km).

6.44 In view of the above, it is considered that the application site is well situated to enable new residents to access local amenities and facilities within the village. In addition, it is considered that the additional population associated within the proposal would be likely to increase custom for the shop and patronage of the services on offer within Great Bowden, thus enhancing the prospects of the future retention of these services.

 Sustainable Modes of Travel

Pedestrian & Cycle Accessibility

6.45 The Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation provides guidance on acceptable walking distances and suggests that a preferred maximum walking distance of 2.0km is applicable for commuting or school trips. The Department for Transport (DfT) in their ‘Transport Statistics on Cycling in Great Britain’ state that the average length of a cycle journey is 2.4 miles (3.84km). It can therefore be concluded that approximately 4km represents a reasonable average cycling distance.

6.46 Manual for Streets provides additional guidance on acceptable walking distances and suggests that walkable neighbourhoods typically have a range of amenities and facilities within 10-minutes (a distance of 0.8km) walking distance of residential areas which residents may access comfortably on foot.

6.47 The local amenities and facilities available within Great Bowden, as illustrated above, are within reasonable walking and/or cycling distances and would be sufficient to meet the day-to-day needs of a village community, and it is considered that future residents of the proposed development will not be reliant upon travelling to other settlements to access basic amenities.

6.48 Notwithstanding the above, with regard to cycling, National Cycle Network (NCN) Route 64 is located to the east of the application site along Station Road. The route, which is mainly on-road, provides a connection to Market Harborough and Market Harborough Railway Station to the south, and a connection to Melton Mowbray and wider afield to the north. NCN Route 6 is located to the west of the site and can be accessed via Leicester Lane. The route provides a connection to Northampton, Market Harborough, Leicester, Derby and Nottingham as well as destinations further afield. A local cycle route runs along Main Street and Leicester Lane connecting NCN Route 64 to Route 6.

Public Transport

6.49 Leicestershire County Council Highways’ ‘6Cs Design Guide’ states that “in rural areas the walking distance (to bus stops) should not be more than 800m.” The application site is located within such walking distances, both during the peak and off-peak times of day.

6.50 The closest bus stops to the proposed development are located on Langton Road, approximately 120m (to the southbound bus stop) and 146m (to the northbound bus stop) from the centre of the application site respectively. These bus stops take the form of flagpole stops. These bus stops are within approximately 2-minute walk from the centre of the application site.

6.51 These bus stops are served by the bus service 44, operated and funded by Centrebus. Bus service 44, which runs between Fleckney and Foxton via Kibworth, Great Bowden and Market Harborough, operates at approximately an hourly frequency (peak) and between a one/two-hourly frequency (off-peak) on Mondays – Saturdays. No service is operated late evenings Monday-Saturday or on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

6.52 Additional bus stops are available within the village along Main Street/The Green, approximately 450m from the centre of the application site, which provide access to an alternative bus service, bus service 33. This is operated and funded by Centrebus. Bus service 33 (Market Harborough Town Service), which runs between Great Bowden and Market Harborough, operates at an approximately an hourly frequency (peak and off-peak) on Mondays –Saturdays. No service is operated late evenings Monday-Saturday or on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

6.53 As part of the proposed development, the Applicant is proposing to provide a paved waiting area adjacent to the southbound bus stop on Langton Road. In the event that the Local Planning Authority grant Outline Planning Permission, this provision will be secured by planning condition.

6.54 Market Harborough Railway Station is located approximately 2.5km to the south of the application site. This facility, operated by East Midlands Trains, offers regular railway services to Leicester, Kettering and London St Pancras, as well as Nottingham and East Midlands Parkway, all within an hourly commute via rail. This facility is served by a 24-hour car park, which provides approximately 219 vehicular spaces, and cycle storage facilities, which provide approximately 36 no. cycle parking

spaces. Bus service 44 operates at the Railway Station, linking the Station with Great Bowden. The Railway Station is considered to be located outwith a realistic walking distance; however, is considered to be within a reasonable cycling distance.

Locational Sustainability Conclusion

6.55 In view of the above, it is considered that Great Bowden benefits from a range of services and amenities and good bus services, which would be readily accessible from the application site. It also benefits from good access to the strategic road network and fibre optic broadband. It’s close physical connection to Market Harborough will mean new residents would have access to the extensive range of services and facilities the town offers, including education, employment, retail and leisure. The proposal would therefore be consistent with the NPPF’s principle that rural housing should be located where it will maintain or enhance the vitality of rural communities. Great Bowden is, therefore, considered to represent a sustainable location for residential development.

d) Highway Matters

6.56 Access is a matter for consideration as part of this planning application.

6.57 Vehicular and pedestrian access to the application site is proposed via the formation of a new access on to Langton Road via a new priority T-junction, as indicated within Figure 3, below. Further contextual information can be found within Figure 2, above.

Figure 3: Proposed Site Access

6.58 The new site access will be located approximately 90.0m north of the southern boundary of the application site. It is proposed that the access would have a carriageway width of 4.8 metres with 6.0m radii on both sides. Visibility splays of 2.4m x 120m to the north and 2.4m x 54m to the south are proposed.

6.59 At present, no pedestrian footways exist along Langton Road, to the western boundary of the application site, nor from the south-west corner of the application site to Welham Road. As part of the proposed development, a footpath connection is proposed to link the proposed development to Welham Road, see Figure 3. This will include the provision of a 2.0m wide footpath adjacent to Langton Road and uncontrolled pedestrian crossing to the junction of Langton Road/Welham Road.

6.60 As part of the proposed development, it is proposed to relocate the existing 30 mph speed limit sign to the entrance of the village to the north of the proposed access junction.

Existing Highway Network

6.61 Langton Road connects to Main Street to the south of the application site, which routes through Great Bowden, and connects to Bowden Road and Thorpe Langton Road, which in turn provides a link to the B6047, to the north. Langton Road is a single carriageway route, with no footways on either side of the carriageway past the junction with Welham Road and Manor Road, within the village. In the vicinity of the application site, Langton Road is subject to the national speed limit; however, this changes to 30 mph on the approach to the village, approximately 20m to the north of the southern boundary of the application site.

Traffic Survey

6.62 Automated Traffic Counters (ATC) were installed to the north and south of the proposed vehicular access to the application site along Langton Road during the period 12th September 2016 and 18th September 2016 inclusively in order to determine vehicular speeds passing the proposed site access. A full copy of the ATC speed survey data is provided within Appendix A of the Transport Statement submitted in support of this application, with a summary provided below:

 Traffic speeds were recorded, with the 85th percentile speeds being 43.4 mph southbound and 33.2 mph northbound.  Two-way traffic flows highlighted that an average of 80 and 84 vehicles flowed past the site during the AM peak (08:00 to 09:00 hours) and PM peak (17:00 to 18:00 hours) respectively.

Proposed Trip Generation

6.63 The Transport Assessment submitted in support of this application has considered the trip generation from the proposed 6 no. dwelling residential scheme during both the AM (08:00 to 09:00 hours) and PM (17:00 to 18:00 hours) peak periods. The proposed development traffic flows would result in an increase of approximately 5 no. two-way trips along Langton Road during the peak periods (approximately one trip every 12 minutes). This is set out in Table 1, below.

Table 1: TRICS Assessment (6 no. Dwellings)

Traffic Impact

6.64 The proposed development is predicted to generate a maximum of 5 no. two-way trips along Langton Road during the peak periods. This is not considered to result in any material impact on the local highway network in respect of additional queues/delays.

Accident Analysis

6.65 In relation to traffic accidents on the local highway network within the vicinity of the application site along Langton Road over the period 2012-16, PTB Transport Planning Ltd obtained personal injury collision (PIC) data from the Crashmap website. The Crashmap website identified that no collisions occurred within the study area over this period; and only 2 no. slight accidents have been reported within the village of Great Bowden during this period.

Highway Impact Assessment

6.66 Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states “Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe.”

6.67 Leicestershire County Council Highways were consulted on this application. Their advice states “the residual cumulative impacts of development can be mitigated and are not considered severe in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF”. Accordingly, subject to conditions (see Conditions 9-11 and 22, Appendix A), the Local Highways Authority has raised no objection to the proposed development.

6.68 In view of the above, it is not considered that the proposal would give rise to any material harm in respect to matters of highway safety. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with the relevant provisions of Policies CS5 and CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy, and Leicestershire County Council Highways’ ‘The 6Cs Design Guide’. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the NPPF (Chapter 4).

e) Landscape Character and Capacity

6.69 Section 7 of the NPPF provides detailed policy regarding good design. Of particular note are Paragraphs 58, 60, 61 and 64. Section 11 of the NPPF also addresses ‘conserving and enhancing the natural environment’, and states at Paragraph 109 that:

“The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

 Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes …”

6.70 Policy CS17 (c) of the Harborough District Core Strategy states that:

“Rural development will be located and designed in a way that is sensitive to its landscape setting, retaining and, where possible, enhancing the distinctive qualities of the landscape character area in which it is situated.”

6.71 In order to determine the effect of the proposed development, it is important to fully understand the character of the application site. Once the landscape character has been established, its sensitivity can be determined which will inform the significance of any change that may occur.

6.72 There are no national (e.g. Green Belt, National Park, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), etc.) designated landscapes within or adjacent to the application site.

6.73 In respect of the national landscape character, Natural England’s National Character Areas (NCAs) identify broad, strategic character areas for the whole of England. The application site lies within the National Character Area 94: Leicestershire Vales.

6.74 In respect of the county and district landscape character, the Harborough District Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Capacity Study (July 2014) identifies broad, strategic character areas, their sensitivity to change and landscape capacity. The application site lies within the Welland Valley Landscape Character Area.

6.75 The key characteristics of the Welland Valley Landscape Character Area include the following:

 “Gently meandering river in wide and shallow valley;  Little tree cover;  Pasture on the floodplains;  Arable farming on the valley sides; and  Market Harborough, operating as a traditional market town, is the dominant urban influence.”

6.76 The study outlines that the sensitivity of the Welland Valley Landscape Character Area has been assessed as being of high sensitivity, with a medium capacity range for further small-scale development.

6.77 The commentary provided within the study provides the following assessment in respect to Great Bowden:

“The character area has the capacity to accommodate some residential development around Market Harborough and to a lesser extent around Great Bowden and Lubenham, the larger settlements within the character area.”

6.78 The application site is located within Land Parcel No. 7, of which the capacity for development has been assessed as being within the medium capacity range. See Figure 4, below.

Figure 4: Landscape Capacity Study Land Parcels (Great Bowden/Market Harborough)

6.79 In respect of Land Parcel No. 7, the parcel is assessed as:

“… have a medium capacity to accommodate development. Given the residential context of the parcel, and the nature of the roads in the surrounding area, commercial development would not be suitable in this Land Parcel. Residential development is felt to be most appropriate in this location, subject to the following mitigation measures:

• Retention of existing landscape features and vegetation The mature vegetation, which divides the Land Parcel into smaller plots, should be retained as far as possible. Some of the ‘greens’ within the Parcel should also be retained as open space, in order to ensure the continuation of key characteristics of the village. • Important views to be retained Views from the ‘greens’, along byways and out to the north from rights of way. • Retention of existing routes through the site The public footpaths and Byways that run through the Land Parcel should be retained if the Parcel were developed. A diversion order would need to be applied for should the alignments require altering. • Ground modelling Ground modelling would not be necessary or appropriate in this location. • Additional planting Field boundaries on the northern and western edges of the Land Parcel should be reinforced with hedge, tree and shrub planting to soften the built edge of the village, if parts of the Parcel were developed. • Maximum building heights

Existing residential properties within the immediate vicinity of this Land Parcel are 2 storeys high. Any development within this Parcel should reflect these heights. • Development layout It is likely that development would comprise small scale or individual plots, to retain the existing intimate character. • Building materials Materials should be appropriate to the village context of the Land Parcel. Housing development should reflect the vernacular style of houses within the historic core of Great Bowden. • Open space provision and green infrastructure The ‘greens’ within the Parcel should be retained as open space and in order to ensure the continuation of key characteristics of the village.”

6.80 In view of the Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Capacity Study, it is considered that there is capacity for small-scale residential development at Great Bowden (Land Parcel No. 7) subject to it being well designed, the incorporation of appropriate mitigation measures, maintaining existing important views in/out of the village and where there would be no significant adverse harm to the wider character of the landscape beyond.

6.81 A Landscape and Visual Appraisal report, prepared by Tyler Grange LLP dated 9th March 2017, and accompanying illustrative documentation, has been submitted in support of the application. This appraisal assesses the likely effects of the proposed development on site “in relation to the character of the area and views.”

6.82 The visual assessment, within the Appraisal, outlines that following a site visit (on 3rd February 2017), a field verified Visual Envelope was prepared, see Figure 5 below. From this, 8 no. representative viewpoints were initially identified where potential views of the application site (and proposed development) would be had from the public highway and Public Rights of Ways (PRoWs).

Figure 5: Visual Envelope

Figure 6: Photo Viewpoint No. 1

6.83 Photo Viewpoint No. 1 (see Figure 6, above) was taken some 12.0m from the application site from the public footpath A46/1, adjacent to Langton Road, from a north-westerly direction. Views of the site are afforded from this location; however, they are filtered due to the nature of extant mature hedgerows and tree cover along the western boundary of the application site. Furthermore, filtered views are afforded of the neighbouring site, land to the east of the application site, which has secured planning permission for residential development (planning permission reference 16/02083/REM).

Figure 7: Photo Viewpoint No. 2

6.84 Photo Viewpoint No. 2 (see Figure 7, above) was taken some 550m from the application site from the public footpath A46/2, from a north-westerly direction. Limited views of the application site and the settlement edge of Great Bowden are afforded from this location due to the intervening nature of extant mature hedgerows and tree cover along adjacent field boundaries, and by virtue of the elevated position of the railway line, which screen the site. Notwithstanding this, glimpse views of the settlement of Great Bowden, including the rooftops of houses, are afforded within the background context.

Figure 8: Photo Viewpoint No. 3

6.85 Photo Viewpoint No. 3 (see Figure 8, above) was taken some 1024m from the application site from the public footpath A63/2, from a westerly direction. Limited views of the application site and the settlement edge of Great Bowden are afforded from this location due to the intervening nature of extant mature hedgerows and tree cover along adjacent field boundaries, which screen the site. Notwithstanding this, views of the church spire of the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul is afforded within the background context.

Figure 9: Photo Viewpoint No. 4

6.86 Photo Viewpoint No. 4 (see Figure 9, above) was taken some 820m from the application site from the public footpath A47/1, where it crosses the railway line, from a north-westerly direction. Limited views of the application site are afforded from this location due to the intervening nature of extant mature hedgerows and tree cover along adjacent field boundaries and the railway line, which screen the site. Notwithstanding this, glimpse views of the settlement edge of Great Bowden, including the rooftops of houses, are afforded within the background context.

Figure 10: Photo Viewpoint No. 5

6.87 Photo Viewpoint No. 5 (see Figure 10, above) was taken some 240m from the application site from the National Cycle Route No. 64, from an easterly direction. There is a clear view into the application site as well as glimpse views of the stables located to the northern boundary of the site. In the foreground is the neighbouring site, land to the east of the application site, which has secured planning permission for residential development (planning permission reference 16/02083/REM). This view is open to change upon the construction of this consented scheme through the introduction of further vegetation and built form into the view.

Figure 11: Photo Viewpoint No. 6

6.88 Photo Viewpoint No. 6 (see Figure 11, above) was taken some 383m from the application site from Welham Road and the route of the National Cycle Route No. 64, from a north-easterly direction. There is a clear view into the application site although this is partially filtered due to the intervening nature of extant mature hedgerows and tree cover along adjacent field boundaries and the railway line, which partially screen the site. In the foreground is the neighbouring site, land to the east of the application site, which has secured planning permission for residential development (planning permission reference 16/02083/REM). This view is open to change upon the construction of this consented scheme through the introduction of further vegetation and built form into the view.

Figure 12: Photo Viewpoint No. 7

6.89 Photo Viewpoint No. 7 (see Figure 12, above) was taken some 1758m from the application site from the public bridleway A56/2, from a north-easterly direction. Limited views of the application site are afforded due to the gentle rise in intervening topography.

Figure 13: Photo Viewpoint No. 8

6.90 Photo Viewpoint No. 8 (see Figure 12, above) was taken some 2233m from the application site from the public bridleway HB1, from a north-easterly direction. Limited views of the application site are afforded due to the intervening nature of extant mature hedgerows and tree cover along adjacent field boundaries, which screen the site.

6.91 In view of the above, it is considered that within the context of public views, the application site is relatively well-contained by the surrounding landscaping, and set within the backdrop of the existing settlement edge of Great Bowden. Furthermore, it is considered that the application site would be set within the backdrop of the proposed residential development on adjoining land, to the east. Accordingly, it is not considered that the proposals would unduly impact upon the setting of the settlement or the wider landscape character.

6.92 Notwithstanding the above, the mitigation measures outlined within the Appraisal (and the Planning, Design and Access Statement) to minimise the impact of the proposed development on the landscape and its visual amenity appear to be in line with the Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Capacity Study. Such include:

Built Form

 Building heights will be limited to two-stories in height; and

 Proposed material treatment and design of the dwellings will match the local vernacular.

Landscape

 Retention of existing mature trees and hedgerows along the site boundaries, where possible, and enhanced. This is particularly pertinent to the northern boundary of the site, in order to preserve the rural character of the settlement; and

 Potential incorporation of an area of open space along the eastern boundary, adjoining the area of public open space within the consented scheme on adjoining land. This will ensure the continuation of key characteristics of the village within the application site and adjoining land.

6.93 It is considered that, subject to the proposed mitigation measures and appropriate planning conditions (see Conditions 5-8, Appendix A), the proposed development would become well-integrated with the existing settlement, and the visual impact of the proposal in context of the character and appearance of Great Bowden would not be significant in respect of medium to long distance views towards the village. In addition, it is considered that the proposal would assimilate well into the existing landscape setting.

6.94 In view of the above, it is considered that the proposed development would on- balance be acceptable in terms of the impact on landscape character, in line with Policy CS17 (c) of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

f) Design

6.95 Although the matter of design (form/layout, mass, scale, proportions, style, materials) of the proposed development is not a matter which is currently for consideration at this time, and will be tested at the Reserved Matters stage in the event that Outline Planning Permission is granted, an illustrative masterplan (Figure 2) has been submitted in support of this application, which together with supporting information contained within the Planning, Design and Access Statement, demonstrates how the application site could be developed, taking into account the constraints of the application site. It should be noted; however, that it does not preclude alternative layouts as part of a subsequent Reserved Matters or detailed Planning Application.

6.96 With regard to matters of design, the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that “good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.”

6.97 Paragraph 58 of the NPPF advises that planning decisions should aim to ensure that developments function well and add to the overall quality of the area, respond to local character and history and reflect the identify of local surroundings and materials and are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping. Paragraph 60 continues to state that planning decisions should “seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness”. Paragraph 61 of the NPPF states “visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are very important factors.”

6.98 With regard to determining applications, paragraph 63 of the NPPF states “great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which raise the standard of design more generally in the area”. Paragraph 64 continues to state “permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.”

6.99 Policy CS2 of the Harborough District Core Strategy states:

b) All housing developments should be of the highest design standard (in conformity with Policy CS11) and have a layout that makes the most efficient use of land and is compatible with the built form and character of the area in which it is situated. A mix of housing types will be required on sites of 10 or more dwellings, taking into account the type of provision that is likely to be required, informed by the most up to date Strategic Housing Market Assessment or other local evidence.

Proposals for sites of 0.3ha or above will be required to meet the following minimum net density standards:

40 dwellings per ha - sites within and adjacent to the Principal Shopping and Business Area of Market Harborough and Lutterworth (ref. Policy CS6Improving Town Centres);

30 dwellings per ha - sites elsewhere in the District.

Higher densities are particularly encouraged in locations that offer, or have the potential to offer, a choice of transport options and are accessible to other services and facilities. Additional design and density guidance for large site allocations and the strategic development area will be provided in the Allocations DPD. In circumstances where individual site characteristics dictate and are justified, a lower density may be appropriate.”

6.100 Policy CS11 (Promoting Design and Built Heritage) of the Harborough District Core Strategy requires proposals for development to exhibit a high standard of design to “create attractive places for people to live, work and visit.” To meet these requirements, proposed development should “be inspired by, respect and enhance local character, building materials and distinctiveness of the area in which it would be situated.” In addition, development “should respect the context in which it is taking place and respond to the unique characteristics of the individual site and wider local environment beyond the site’s boundaries to ensure that it is integrated as far as possible into the existing built form of the District.”

6.101 The proposed illustrative masterplan (Figure 2) and supporting information demonstrate that a residential development comprising 6 no. dwellings could be accommodated on the application site. Furthermore, it demonstrates the following:

 The site will be accessed from one point, off of Langton Road, through the creation of a new vehicular/pedestrian access to Langton Road;

 New pedestrian footways to be provided adjacent to Langton Road to serve the application site, which in turn will connect the site to the settlement of Great Bowden;

 The retention of extant mature trees and hedgerows to the northern, eastern and western boundaries, except where necessary to facilitate access into the site, and enhancement. This will be supported by new landscaping situated to the southern boundary of the application site;

 Development will likely be based around a central courtyard design, in this case an area of open space which is to be provided adjacent to the public open space indicated on the approved layout of planning permission 16/02083/REM;

 Dwellings arranged in small groups, in pairs or individually;

 Development would be restricted to a maximum of 2 no. storeys in height across the site;

 Proposed material treatment and design of the dwellings will match the local vernacular; and

 5.0m buffer zone (no-build zone) identified along the eastern and southern boundaries of the application site.

6.102 The density of the proposed development would achieve 10 no. dwellings per hectare (dph), which is below the 30 no. dph target set out in Policy CS2 of the Harborough District Core Strategy. Whilst a lower density is proposed, the design of the proposed development, and the resulting density, has been driven by the characteristics of the application site, the recently approved adjoining residential development and the surrounding context (Great Bowden village). Accordingly, this density is considered to be commensurate with the surrounding context.

6.103 The housing mix of the proposed development is currently unknown.

6.104 In view of the above, it is considered that the illustrative masterplan and supporting Information, notably the Planning, Design and Access Statement, indicate that a high quality design could be achieved for the proposed development, in the event that Outline Planning Permission is granted, which would not cause a significant level harm to the character and appearance of the village, or to the landscape character or visual receptors.

g) Residential Amenity

6.105 Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework “seeks to secure a high quality design and good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings”.

6.106 Policy CS11 (Promoting Design and Built Heritage) of the Harborough District Core Strategy requires proposals for development to “ensure that the amenities of existing and future neighbouring occupiers are safeguarded.”

6.107 As the matters of layout, scale and appearance of the proposed development is not a matter which is currently for consideration at this time, and will be tested at the Reserved Matters stage in the event that Outline Planning Permission is granted, it is not possible to provide a detailed assessment on whether or not the amenity of existing residential properties located adjacent to, or within close proximity of, the application site will be adversely affected in terms of loss of light (overshadowing), loss of privacy (overlooking) or over dominant or overbearing structure (as outlined within the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance).

6.108 Notwithstanding the above, the Case Officer is satisfied that the proposed illustrative masterplan demonstrates that the proposal would protect the amenity of those neighbouring residential properties along Welham Road, which adjoin the southern boundary of the application site, in relation to the above.

6.109 In this case, the proposed illustrative masterplan (Figure 2) and supporting information outline the Applicant’s intention to enhance the landscaping along the

southern boundary of the application site, likely to include the planting of a hedgerow containing trees, and to incorporate a 5.0m buffer zone (a no-build zone) along the southern and eastern boundaries of the site. The proposed dwellings and garages situated towards the southern end of the application site, which are not to exceed double-storey in height, would be located outwith the buffer zone and behind the proposed landscaping. The separation distances indicated between these dwellings/garages and the existing residential properties adjoining the southern boundary of the application site would be in excess of 21.0m, which would be considered to be acceptable in this case in line with SPG Note 2.

6.110 It is considered that during construction there could potentially be some adverse impacts on residential amenity. However, a planning condition (see Condition 10, Appendix A) requiring a Construction Environmental Management Plan to be approved and implemented could be imposed upon any grant of planning permission in order to limit the disturbance and inconvenience that may arise when building works are undertaken. In addition to planning controls, the Environmental Protection Act provides a variety of safeguards in respect of noise, air and light pollution.

6.111 Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with the relevant provisions of Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy and Paragraph 11 of the NPPF.

h) Ecology

6.112 An Ecology and Bat Survey Report, prepared by Quants Environmental Ltd dated September 2016, was submitted in support of this planning application.

6.113 Leicestershire County Council’s Ecologist has been consulted on this application and raised no objection on ecological grounds. The ecology report was found to be acceptable. No evidence of protected species living on site was identified, and it is not envisaged that protected species will be impacted upon by virtue of the proposed development.

i) Arboriculture

6.114 A Tree Survey, prepared by Arboricultural Consultant Andrew Belson on behalf of Fisher German dated October 2016, has been submitted in support of this planning application.

6.115 The tree survey was undertaken to assess the quality and value of the principal trees within or adjacent to the application site.

6.116 A total of 8 no. individual trees, 4 no. groups of trees or hedgerows were surveyed as part of the tree survey. The species of individual trees identified were; Sycamore, Ash and Horse Chesnut. The species of trees in groups identified were; Pine and Horse Chesnut. Hedgerow species identified were primarily Hawthorn and Blackthorn.

6.117 Of the individual trees surveyed 50% were in Category C (Trees of low quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 10 years, or young trees with a stem diameter below 150mm); 42% were in Category B (Trees of moderate quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 20 years); and 8% were Category A (Trees of High Quality / Value).

6.118 It is expected that no significant tree/hedgerow loss will be required to facilitate the proposed development. The removal of a low quality tree (NT1 or NT2) is suggested. The partial removal of a section of low quality hedgerow (Group D) will be required to facilitate the vehicular/pedestrian access to the application site. It will be likely that minor arboricultural works would be required in order to improve the health and appearance of various trees/hedgerows.

6.119 The illustrative proposed masterplan (Figure 2) indicates that the proposed development would be kept outwith the root protection areas of existing trees/hedgerows. Notwithstanding the above, it will be necessary to pay close attention to the final layout, at the Reserved Matter stage in the event that Outline Planning Permission is granted, to ensure that the proposed development will not adversely affect existing trees/hedgerows.

6.120 Leicestershire County Council Senior Forestry Team Leader has been consulted on this application. No objection has been raised to the proposal.

6.121 In view of the above, it is not considered that the proposal would give rise to any significant harm in respect to trees. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development would, subject to planning conditions, be in accordance with the relevant provisions of Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

j) Flood Risk/Drainage

6.122 Policy CS10 of the Harborough District Core Strategy states:

“a) New development will be directed towards areas at the lowest risk of flooding within the District; with priority given to land within Flood Zone 1.”

6.123 The Environment Agency Flood Map indicates that the application site is located outwith Flood Zones 2 and 3, within Flood Zone 1. In view of this, residential development within Flood Zone 1 is considered to be acceptable in principle in line with Policy CS10.

6.124 Notwithstanding the above, Policy CS10 continues to state:

“d) All new development will be expected to ensure that is does not increase the level of flooding experienced in other areas of the District.

e) Surface water run off in all developments should be managed, to minimise the net increase in the amount of surface water discharged into the local public sewer system.

…

g) The use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) will be expected; and design and layout schemes which enhance natural forms of on site drainage will be encouraged.”

 Proposed Surface Water Drainage

6.125 The Application Form outlines the Applicant intends on surface water being disposed of into the mains sewer.

6.126 The Leicestershire County Council Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) has been consulted on this application. They have referred the Local Planning Authority to their standing advice.

6.127 Anglian Water have also been consulted on this application, although had no comments to make in connection with the proposed development.

6.128 Harborough District Council (Technical Services – Drainage) have been consulted on this application; however, no consultation response has been received.

6.129 In this case, it is suggested that appropriate conditions should be applied in the event that Outline Planning Permission is granted in order to ensure an appropriate method of surface water drainage can be achieved (see Condition 14, Appendix A).

 Proposed Foul Water Drainage

6.130 The Application Form outlines that the method of foul water drainage is unknown at this time.

6.131 Anglian Water have been consulted on this application, although had no comments to make in connection with the proposed development.

6.132 In this case, it is suggested that appropriate conditions should be applied in the event that Outline Planning Permission is granted in order to ensure an appropriate method of foul water drainage can be achieved (see Condition 13, Appendix A).

6.133 In view of the above, and subject to planning conditions, it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with the relevant provisions of Policy CS10 of the Harborough District Core Strategy in respect of flood risk and drainage considerations.

k) Other Matters

Recent Housing Approvals

6.134 Reference has been made, within the consultation responses received from the local community, with regards to the recent approvals of residential development within/adjoining the village of Great Bowden, for example planning application reference 16/02083/REM (50 dwellings).

6.135 The Case Officer acknowledges these recent housing commitments for the village; however as previously referred to earlier within this report; the Council cannot demonstrate a five year land supply and in the absence of up to date housing polices, decision makers are required to determine the proposal in line with the presumption of sustainable development as per Paragraph 14 of the NPPF.

6.136 Furthermore, whilst the distribution of growth within the District and the level of that growth is a matter that will be determined through the emerging local plan, it is very clear that whatever growth strategy is adopted, Great Bowden, as a sustainable settlement, (which is likely to maintain its Selected Rural Village status) will need to accommodate further housing growth beyond that already committed.

Great Bowden Neighbourhood Plan

6.137 Concerns have been raised, within the consultation responses received from the local community, that this application is pre-empting the outcome of the Neighbourhood Plan, and that the application site does not represent a preferred development site within the emerging Neighbourhood Plan.

6.138 The emerging Great Bowden Neighbourhood Plan has recently been subject to the pre-submission consultation stage (Regulation 14 of the Town and Country Planning, England, Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012), which ended on 26th July 2017. Notwithstanding this, it is understood that the Great Bowden Parish Council have a meeting scheduled for 24th August 2017 to approve the submission version of the Great Bowden Neighbourhood Plan with a view to submit it to the Local Planning Authority under Regulation 15 of the above Regulations. In view of this extant position, it is suggested that moderate weight can be applied to the emerging Neighbourhood Plan.

6.139 Notwithstanding the above, I have considered the application against the key policies contained within the emerging Neighbourhood Plan, below. Issues relating to specific design features would be a matter for consideration at the Reserved Matters stage, and is not for consideration at this stage.

6.140 Policy S1 relates to the presumption in favour of sustainable development, in line with Paragraph 14 of the NPPF. This particular matter is assessed throughout the Officer’s consideration of this planning application.

6.141 Policy H1 relating to Housing Provision outlines that in view of the high number of already-constructed dwellings and sites with planning permission since April 2016, the Parish has exceeded its housing requirement over the plan period 2016- 2031. Accordingly, until such time as an identified increase in housing need across the District is identified or unless there is a failure to deliver existing commitments, residential development will be restricted, with the exception of windfall development in line with Policy H3. However, this policy would be affected by virtue of the current lack of a 5-year supply of deliverable housing land as discussed in detail above.

6.142 Policy H2 relates to Limits to Development. Land outwith the defined Limits to Development will be treated as open countryside, where development limits will be carefully controlled in line with local and national strategic planning policies. The application site is located outwith, but immediately adjacent to, the Limits to Development for Great Bowden. However, this policy would be affected by virtue of the current lack of a 5-year supply of deliverable housing land as discussed in detail above.

6.143 Policy H4 relates to housing mix. It outlines that new residential development should provide a mix of house types to meet a localised need. Support will be given to 1, 2 and 3 bed dwelling houses and to homes suitable for older people or those with restricted mobility, as are the provision of self-build dwellings. 4+ bedroom dwellings may be included in the mix of dwellings, but this provision would be expected to comprise a clear minority. In this case the housing mix of the proposed residential development is unknown; however, it would be expected that the housing mix would be in accordance with this Policy.

6.144 Policy ENV5 relates to ridge and furrow earthworks, which constitute non-designated heritage assets. Figure 8, which supports this policy, outlines the presence of ridge and furrow earthworks within the Parish of Great Bowden. The application site is

excluded from the sites identified within Figure 8. This policy states that any loss or damage arising from development proposals is to be avoided; and the demonstrable benefits of such development must be balanced against the significance of the ridge and furrow features as heritage assets. The assessment of the proposal, in this case, in connection with the loss of ridge and furrow earthworks has been considered in detail above.

6.145 Policy ENV9 relates to woodlands, trees and hedgerows. It outlines that development proposals which will affect such landscaping features of environmental significance, or of landscape or amenity value, will be resisted. Proposals for new residential development should be designed to retain such landscaping features. Where destruction cannot be avoided , replacement landscaping (trees, on a two-for-one basis; or hedgerows, of native species providing a net gain in length and quality) will be required. The potential impact of the development proposals on existing landscape features is currently unknown at this Outline stage; however, it would be expected that the proposal would be in accordance with this policy. Any loss of such landscaping features would be expected to be mitigated, which would be controlled by way of planning condition (see Condition 7, Appendix A) in the event that Outline Planning Permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority.

6.146 Policy ENV10 relates to biodiversity/ecology. It outlines that that development proposals that conserve or enhance biodiversity, and incorporate biodiversity in and around them, will be encouraged. The assessment of the proposal, in this case, in connection with the matter of ecology has been considered in detail above.

Noise

6.147 By virtue of the proximity of the Midland Mainline Railway Line and Langton Road to the application site, approximately 60.0m and immediately adjacent to the western boundary of the application site respectively, it is considered that there is potential for the proposed development to be adversely affected by reason of noise.

6.148 An Outline Noise Assessment, prepared by Noise Assess Ltd dated December 2016, was submitted in support of this planning application.

6.149 An unattended site survey was undertaken between 15:00 hours on 7th December 2016 and 12:00 hours on 8th December 2016. The results obtained from the survey were unexpected due to engineering works undertaken on the railway line between 21:00 hours on 7th December 2016 and 07:00 hours on 8th December 2016. As a result assumptions have been made within the Noise Assessment as to likely expected noise levels to be experienced on-site during the night time period (23:00 – 07:00 hours). This includes 58 dB LAeq during the daytime period (07:00 – 23:00 hours) and 58 dB LAeq & 86 dB LAmax during the night time period.

6.150 The report outlines the design criteria identified within British Standard (BS) 8233:2014 ‘Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings’ that the proposed development would need to be in accordance with.

6.151 In order to meet the design criteria of BS 8233:2014, a number of potential mitigation measures are identified. Such include: acoustic barriers to private amenity spaces, layout of development to ensure screening of private amenity spaces, construction detailing of individual components of the buildings (e.g. ventilation and glazing, etc.). It is suggested that subject to mitigation, the design criteria identified within BS 8233:2014 can be met.

100

6.152 The Council’s Environmental Health department have been consulted on this application. No objection has been raised, however, the advice received suggests that further clarification is required in respect to the mitigation measures identified in terms of whether or not they will effectively mitigate the noise levels experienced on site. It is suggested that this can be controlled by condition (see Condition 20, Appendix A) in the event that Outline Planning Permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority.

6.153 In view of the above, and subject to condition, it is considered that the proposed development would not be adversely impacted by reason of noise.

Green Belt

6.154 Concerns have been raised, within the consultation responses received, that the proposed development would result in the loss of Green Belt land. It should be noted that there is no ‘Green Belt’ designation within the District, in which case no such loss would arise.

l) Sustainable Development

6.155 The NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to grant planning permission for sustainable development.

6.156 Paragraph 7 of the NPPF states: “there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental”. Taking each of these in turn the following conclusions can be reached:

o Economic The development would contribute towards economic growth during the construction period in terms of employment. In the longer term, the additional population would be likely to increase spending, for instance in the local shops and help support the range of other local services, including the local bus service, which would help maintain their viability.

o Social The development would increase the supply and choice of housing in line with an Objectively Assessed Need in an area where there is no NPPF compliant supply of deliverable housing land.

o Environmental In terms of environmental considerations, the application site is located on the edge of a sustainable settlement, within a reasonable walking/cycling distance to a range of amenities and services, and it is highly accessible via public transport, in which case future occupiers of the proposed development would not be dependent on the private car for day-to-day living. The development, through the loss of greenfield land, would result in limited and localised harm to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. However, it is considered that this harm can be reduced in time through robust landscape mitigation. The development will result in less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, the Great Bowden Conservation Area. In this case, the Council’s Conservation Officer considers that the proposal would not result in additional harm to the setting of the Conservation Area in light of the recently approved development on adjoining land.

101

The development will result in less than substantial harm to a non-designated heritage asset, ridge and furrow earthworks; however, it is considered that this harm would be outweighed by the proposed mitigation, and the public benefit of the proposal. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development; whilst layout, scale, appearance and landscaping are reserved matters, the illustrative masterplan and supporting information indicate a high quality design could be achieved which would not cause a significant level harm to the character and appearance of the village, or to the landscape character or visual receptors, and will safeguard the amenity of existing and future residents. Statutory consultees are satisfied that the proposed development would not result in increased flood risk, adversely affect highway safety, ecological or arboricultural interests.

6.157 In view of the above, when assessed against Paragraph 14 of the NPPF, as well as the NPPF taken as a whole, and in consideration of the Development Plan, the adverse environmental and social impacts are not considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposed development, in which case the proposed development is considered to represent sustainable development.

7. Conclusion/The Planning Balance

7.1 With appropriate mitigation where required, it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with the up-to-date elements of Policies CS1, CS2, CS3, CS5, CS8, CS9, CS10, CS11 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy, and no material considerations indicate that the policies of the Development Plan should not prevail.

7.2 When assessed against the NPPF, Paragraph 14 (presumption in favour of sustainable development), as well as the NPPF taken as a whole, no significant and demonstrable harm is identified and thus the proposal should be approved without delay.

7.3 The recommendation has been made taking into account Paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF, as well as National Planning Practice Guidance.

7.4 In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal would meet the relevant national and local policies. Therefore, this application is recommended for approval subject to conditions (see Appendix A).

8. Planning Conditions & Informatives

8.1 If Members are minded to approve the application a list of suggested Planning Conditions and Informatives is attached to Appendix A.

102

Appendix A: Conditions and Informative

Planning Conditions:

1) Reserved Matters No development shall commence on site until details of the following matters (in respect of which approval is expressly reserved) have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority:

(a) The scale of the development;

(b) The layout of the development;

(d) The landscaping of the site.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: The application was made for outline planning permission and is granted to accord with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Part 3(6) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

2) Time Limits The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

3) Approved Plans The development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with the following approved plan(s):

Drawing No. 111465/001 (Site & Location Plan As Existing); and Drawing No. 001 Rev C (Indicative Site Access Layout).

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

4) Levels The layout and landscaping details to be submitted in accordance with Condition 1 shall include details of existing and proposed ground levels of the site and the finished ground floor levels of proposed dwellings, garages and other structures. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the work is carried out at suitable levels in relation to adjoining properties and the wider surroundings, having regard to amenity, landscape, biodiversity, access, highway and drainage requirements and to

103

accord with Policies CS1, CS8, CS11 and CS17c of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

5) Boundary and Surface Treatments The landscaping details to be submitted in accordance with Condition 1 shall include details of the position and design (dimensions and materials) of all boundary and surface treatments (including details of paths, driveways and all public areas). The boundary and surface treatments shall be provided to each dwelling before that dwelling is first occupied, or in accordance with an approved phasing plan.

Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development, in the interest of visual amenities and to accord with Policies CS1, CS8, CS11 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

6) Materials Details The external appearance details to be submitted in accordance with Condition 1 shall include details of the materials to be used externally in the construction of dwellings, garages and other structures (all bricks, including brick bond style, tiles, including ridge tiles, render types and colours, any date stones, garage door and other doors, windows, sills and lintels, corbel/dentil/string course brickwork, rainwater goods, porch canopies, bargeboards, fascias, soffits, finials and other external materials). Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained as such in perpetuity.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity, to ensure that the materials are appropriate to the character and appearance of the development and the surrounding area (including the setting of the Great Bowden Conservation Area) and to accord with Policies CS1, CS2, CS11 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

7) Landscape The landscaping details to be submitted in accordance with Condition 1 shall include:

(a) indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land;

(b) details of any trees and hedgerows to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development;

(c) all species, planting sizes and planting densities, spread of all trees and hedgerows within or overhanging the site, in relation to the proposed buildings, roads, and other works;

(d) finished levels and contours;

(e) minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, refuse and other storage units, signs, lighting etc);

(f) retained historic landscape features and proposed restoration, where relevant.

(g) programme of implementation.

104

Thereafter, the development shall be implemented fully in accordance with the approved details and retained in perpetuity.

Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development in the interest of the visual amenities of the area and to accord with Policy CS8 and CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

8) Landscape Management Plan No development shall commence on site until a landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than small, privately owned, domestic gardens, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained as such in perpetuity.

Reason: To ensure the proper management and maintenance of the approved landscaping in the interests of amenity and the character and appearance of the area and to accord with Policy CS8 and CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

9) Site Access & Highway Works No part of the development shall be occupied until such time as the access and offsite highway works shown on Drawing Number 001 Rev C have been implemented in full.

Reason: To mitigate the impact of the development, in the general interests of highway safety and in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

10) Construction Management Plan No development shall commence on site (including any site clearance/preparation works), until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for:

a) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

b) loading and unloading of plant and materials;

c) storage of oils, fuels, chemicals, plant and materials used in constructing the development;

d) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding, including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate;

e) wheel washing facilities and road cleaning arrangements;

f) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction;

g) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from site preparation and construction works;

h) measures for the protection of the natural environment;

105

i) hours of work on site, including deliveries and removal of materials;

j) full details of any piling technique to be employed, if relevant;

k) location of temporary buildings and associated generators, compounds, structures and enclosures;

l) details of the routing of construction traffic; and

m) measures to control and minimise noise from plant and machinery.

Reason: To minimise detrimental effects to neighbouring amenities, the amenities of the area in general, the natural environment through pollution risks, and dangers to highway safety during the construction phase and to accord with Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

11) Car Parking Provision Before first occupation of any dwelling, car parking shall be provided, hard surfaced and made available for use to serve that dwelling in accordance with Leicestershire County Council 6 ‘C’s Design Guide. The parking spaces so provided shall thereafter be permanently so maintained.

Reason: To ensure that adequate off-street parking provision is made to reduce the possibilities of the proposed development leading to on-street parking problems in the area.

12) Storage Facilities for Refuse and Recycling Materials No development shall commence on site until details of storage facilities for refuse and recycling materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained as such in perpetuity.

Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of refuse and recycling storage facilities, in the interests of visual amenities and general amenities and to accord with Policies CS1 and CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

13) Foul Water Drainage Details Notwithstanding the details submitted with the Outline application, No development shall commence on site until full details, including the design, implementation and maintenance/management, of the means of foul water drainage for the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained in perpetuity.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory drainage of the site and to accord Policy CS10 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

14) Surface Water Drainage Details No drainage works shall commence until a surface water management strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained in perpetuity.

106

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory drainage of the site and to accord with Policy CS10 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

15) Construction Surface Water Management Plan No development shall commence on site until details in relation to the management of surface water on site during construction of the development hereby approved has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent an increase in flood risk, maintain the existing surface water runoff quality and to prevent damage to the final surface water management system through the entire construction phase; and to accord with Policy CS10 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

16) Archaeology No demolition/development shall take place/commence until a programme of archaeological work including a Written Scheme of Investigation has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and:  The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording;  The programme for post investigation assessment;  Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording;  Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation;  Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation;  Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation.

Note: The Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) must be prepared by an archaeological contractor acceptable to the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory archaeological investigation and recording, and to accord with Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Council Core Strategy.

17) Archaeology No demolition/development shall take place other than in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under Condition 16.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory archaeological investigation and recording, and to accord with Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Council Core Strategy.

18) Archaeology The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under Condition 16 and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured.

107

Reason: To ensure satisfactory archaeological investigation and recording, and to accord with Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Council Core Strategy.

19) Ecological Survey The development herby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations in section 4 of the Ecology and Bat Survey Report, prepared by Quants Environmental Ltd dated September 2016.

Reason: To ensure species identified are protected during the construction period and safeguarded following completion of the development.

Noise Attenuation Details 20) No development shall commence on site until a scheme of works for noise attenuation to the dwellings and their private amenity spaces has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Any works which form part of the approved scheme shall be completed before each dwelling is first occupied and shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details at all times thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11

Removal of Permitted Development Rights 21) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re- enacting or amending those Orders with or without modification), no development within Part 1, Classes A-H, to Schedule 2 of this Order shall take place on the dwellinghouse(s) hereby permitted or within their curtilage.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to enable the Local Planning Authority to consider individually whether planning permission should be granted for additions, extensions or enlargements and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Removal of Permitted Development Rights 22) Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 2 of Schedule 2, Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no gates, barriers, bollards, chains or other such obstructions shall be erected to the vehicular access.

Reason: To enable a vehicle to stand clear of the highway in order to protect the free and safe passage of traffic including pedestrians in the public highway in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

Informative Notes:

1) Building Regulations You are advised that this proposal may require separate consent under the Building Regulations and that no works should be undertaken until all necessary consents have been obtained. Advice on the requirements of the Building Regulations can be obtained from the Building Control Section, Harborough District Council. As such please be aware that according with

108

building regulations does not mean that the planning conditions attached to this permission have been discharged and vice versa.

2) Permission not authorising work on land outside the applicant’s control and Party Wall Act The applicant is requested to note that this permission does not affect any private property rights and therefore does not authorise the carrying out of any work on land outside their control. If such works are required it will be necessary for the applicant to obtain the landowners consent before such works commence. If you intend carrying out works in the vicinity of the site boundary, you are also advised that it may be expedient to seek your own advice with regard to the requirements of the Party Wall Act 1996.

3) Non-Approved Plans The following plans do not form part of the approved plans:

Drawing No. 111465/002C (Indicative Masterplan).

4) Highways Act 1980 This planning permission does NOT allow you to carry out access alterations in the highway. Before such work can begin, separate permits or agreements will be required under the Highways Act 1980 from the Infrastructure Planning team. For further information, including contact details, you are advised to visit the County Council website: - see Part 6 of the '6Cs Design Guide' at www.leics.gov.uk/6csdg.

5) Off-Site Highway Works You will be required to enter into a suitable legal Agreement with the Highway Authority for the off-site highway works before development commences and detailed plans shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Highway Authority. The Agreement must be signed and all fees paid and surety set in place before the highway works are commenced.

6) Highway Adoption If the roads within the proposed development are to be adopted by the Highway Authority, the Developer will be required to enter into an agreement under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 for the adoption of the roads. Detailed plans will need to be submitted and approved, the agreement signed and all sureties and fees paid prior to the commencement of development. If an Agreement is not in place when the development is to be commenced, the Highway Authority will serve APCs in respect of all plots served by all the roads within the development in accordance with Section 219 of the Highways Act 1980. Payment of the charge MUST be made before building commences.

109

Planning Committee Report

Applicant: Mr E Gregory

Application Ref: 17/00695/FUL

Location: 6 Gladstone Street, Market Harborough, Leicestershire, LE16 9ET

Proposal: Change of use of building stores to form three residential units including an increase in ridge height and first floor extensions (revised scheme of 16/01010/FUL).

Application Validated: 24/04/2017

Target Date: 22/06/2017 (Extension of time agreed until 06/10/2017)

Consultation Expiry Date: 28/07/2017

Site Visit Date: 17/05/2017

Case Officer: Jeremy Eaton

Recommendation

Planning Permission is REFUSED, for the reasons set out below;

1. The proposed development, by reason of siting, scale, massing, height and appearance, would result in an overbearing form of development in context of the neighbouring residential properties, No.’s 8-10 Gladstone Street. The proposed apartment building (in particular the proposed first floor extension to the host building) would be located approximately 3.2m from the western boundary of the application site, and approximately 6.5m from the eastern elevation of the neighbouring apartment building which contains primary habitable room windows. In view of this and the orientation of the two properties, the proposal would be overly overbearing and unduly restrict access to sunlight to the neighbouring property. Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary with the provisions of Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy and “saved” Policy HS/8 of the Harborough District Local Plan. Furthermore, the proposal would conflict with paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The proposed development, by reason of the siting of the proposed car parking and turning facilities to the rear of the application site and by virtue of the increase in vehicular movements, would give rise to an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of the occupants of neighbouring properties, No’s 4 and 8-10 Gladstone Street and No.’s 1-3 Patrick Street, in terms of light, noise and air pollution. Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary with the provisions of Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy and “saved” Policy HS/8 of the Harborough District Local Plan. Furthermore, the proposal would conflict with paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

110

1. Site & Surroundings

1.1 The application site comprises the property of No. 6 Gladstone Street, located within the Development Limits of Market Harborough. The site is located to the northern side of Gladstone Street, bordered by the residential properties of No.’s 4 and 8-10 Gladstone Street to the eastern and western boundaries of the site respectively. Residential properties, whilst No.’s 3 and 5 Patrick Street adjoin the northern boundary of the site.

1.2 The site is currently occupied by a single-storey building which is outlined to be occupied for the purposes of storage (exact storage usage unknown). The building is located to the frontage of the plot, with a small yard to the rear, which is accessed off a private driveway to the side of the building, adjoining the western boundary of the application site. Access to the site is achieved directly of Gladstone Street, via an existing vehicular access.

Figure 1: Site Location

111

Figure 2: Existing Floor Plans & Elevations

2. Site History

2.1 The following relevant planning history relates to the application site:

o 16/01010/FUL - Change of use of building stores to form four residential units including an increase in ridge height and first floor extensions – Refused (29.11.2016);

o 05/00363/FUL - Erection of two dwelling houses – Withdrawn (10.05.2005); and

o 90/01409/3P - Change of use from retail to office – Approved (31.08.1990).

3. The Application Submission

a) Summary of Proposals

3.1 This planning application seeks planning permission for the proposed change of use of the host building, and associated demolitions, extensions and alterations, to create an apartment building comprising 2 no. 1-bedroom apartments and 1 no. 2-bedroom apartment.

3.2 The proposed development incorporates the partial demolition of the existing building, in this case the rear 6.1m of the host building. A first floor extension is proposed, above the retained ground floor footprint of the building, as well as other associated minor alterations to the host building. Associated internal alterations are

112

proposed to the host dwelling, relating to the re-configuration of the internal areas of the host building.

3.3 External materials proposed for the resultant building included rendered walls under a slate roof cladding, with timber-framed fenestrations.

3.4 Each apartment will be provided with its own amenity space.

3.5 The proposed development will be served by an existing vehicular access to Gladstone Street, and driveway which leads to the rear of the application site. A combined turning head and off-street car parking hardstanding area, which will measure approximately 11.5m x 8.27m, is proposed to the rear of the site, which is indicated to provide off-street parking provision for up to 3 no. vehicles. Adjacent to this area will be a bike-store and bin-store. Pedestrian access to the proposed development and application site will be via the existing driveway.

Figure 3 – Proposed Site Block Plan, Floor Plans & Elevations

b) Documents submitted

i. Plans

3.6 The application has been accompanied by the following plans:

Drawing No. 2733/1 Rev –(now superseded); Drawing No. 2733/1 Rev A; Drawing No. 2733/4 Rev – (now superseded); Drawing No. 2733/4 Rev A; Drawing No. 2733/7 Rev – (now superseded); Drawing No. 2733/8 Rev – (now superseded); and Drawing No. 2733/8 Rev A.

113

ii. Documents

3.7 The application has been accompanied by the following documentation:

Application Form.

c) Pre-application Engagement

3.8 Prior to submitting the planning application the proposed development was not subject to a pre-application enquiry.

4. Consultations and Representations

4.1 Consultation with technical consultees and the local community were carried out on the application.

4.2 A summary of the technical consultee responses received is set out below. If you wish to view the comments in full, please go to: www.harborough.gov.uk/planning.

a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees

Market Harborough Civic Society 4.3 No comments.

Harborough District Council (Environmental Health) 4.4 For the following reasons, due to use of the building, the permission should be conditioned as follows

1 Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment

No development (except any demolition permitted by this permission) shall commence on site until a Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in order to ensure that the land is fit for use as the development proposes. The Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment shall be carried out in accordance with:

 BS10175:2011+A1:2013 Investigation Of Potentially Contaminated Sites Code of Practice;  BS8576:2013 Guidance on Investigations for Ground Gas – Permanent Gases and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and  CLR 11 Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, published by The Environment Agency 2004.

Should any unacceptable risks be identified in the Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment, a Remedial Scheme and a Verification Plan must be prepared and submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Remedial Scheme shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of:

114

 CLR 11 Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, published by The Environment Agency 2004.  BS 8485:2015 Code of practice for the design of protective measures for methane and carbon dioxide ground gases for new buildings

The Verification Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of:

 Evidence Report on the Verification of Remediation of Land Contamination Report: SC030114/R1, published by the Environment Agency 2010;  CLR 11 Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, published by The Environment Agency 2004.  BS 8485:2015 Code of practice for the design of protective measures for methane and carbon dioxide ground gases for new buildings  CIRIA C735, “Good practice on the testing and verification of protection systems for buildings against hazardous ground gases” CIRIA, 2014

If, during the course of development, previously unidentified contamination is discovered, development must cease on that part of the site and it must be reported in writing to the Local Planning Authority within 10 working days. Prior to the recommencement of development on that part of the site, a Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment for the discovered contamination (to include any required amendments to the Remedial Scheme and Verification Plan) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained as such in perpetuity, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

{\ul Reason:-} To ensure that the land is fit for purpose and to accord with the aims and objectives of Paragraph 120 of the NPPF

2 Completion/Verification Investigation Report

Prior to occupation of the completed development, or part thereof, Either 1) If no remediation was required by Condition a statement from the developer or an approved agent confirming that no previously identified contamination was discovered during the course of development, or part thereof, is received and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, or 2) A Verification Investigation shall be undertaken in line with the agreed Verification Plan for any works outlined in the Remedial Scheme and a report showing the findings of the Verification Investigation relevant to the whole development, or part thereof, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Verification Investigation Report shall:

 Contain a full description of the works undertaken in accordance with the agreed Remedial Scheme and Verification Plan;  Contain results of any additional monitoring or testing carried out between the submission of the Remedial Scheme and the completion of remediation works;  Contain Movement Permits for all materials taken to and from the site and/or a copy of the completed site waste management plan if one was required;  Contain Test Certificates of imported material to show that it is suitable for its proposed use;  Demonstrate the effectiveness of the approved Remedial Scheme; and  Include a statement signed by the developer, or the approved agent, confirming that all the works specified in the Remedial Scheme have been completed.

115

{\ul Reason:-} To ensure that the land is fit for purpose and to accord with the aims and objectives of Paragraph 120 of the NPPF

INF33 It is recommended that no burning of waste on site is undertaken unless an exemption is obtained from the Environment Agency. The production of dark smoke on site is an offence under the Clean Air Act 1993. Not withstanding the above the emission of any smoke from site could constitute a Statutory Nuisance under section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Other Building works, deliveries, clearance or any works in connection with the development shall take place on site between the hours of 08.00 – 18.00 hours Monday to Friday, 08.00 – 13.00 Saturday and at No time on Sunday or Bank Holidays.

{\ul Reason:-} To ensure that as far as possible the proposed use does not become a source of annoyance to the nearby residents and to ensure compliance with Policy IN/1 of the Harborough Local Plan.

Harborough District Council (Technical Services: Drainage) 4.5 No representation received.

Leicestershire County Council Highways 4.6 The Local Highway Authority refers the Local Planning Authority to current standing advice provided by the Local Highway Authority dated September 2011.

Leicestershire County Council (Ecology) 4.7 The proposed building to be converted is in an existing residential area, not directly connected to any significant habitat features. The proposed development does not therefore meet any ecological triggers and we have no comments on or objections to this application.

Anglian Water 4.8 No comments.

b) Local Community

4.9 6 no. letters of representation have been received in connection with this application, which includes 5 no. objections and 1 no. representation that neither objects nor supports the proposed development. The Case Officer acknowledges that the representations received are very detailed and whilst regard has been had to these in assessing this application, it is impractical to copy these verbatim and, therefore, a summary of the key points/concerns, in no particular order, is provided below:

 Over-development of the plot;  Design of the proposed extensions/alterations to the host building, not in keeping with character and appearance of neighbouring buildings within the streetscene to Gladstone Street, and its impact on the visual amenity of the streetscene.  Overlooking to neighbouring properties, and consequent loss of privacy;  Overbearing impact of the proposed development;  Concerns relating to boundary issues with neighbouring properties;  Insufficient off-street vehicular parking provision;

116

 Concerns that the proposed development would adversely impact upon on- street vehicular parking provision along Gladstone Street;  Increased vehicular movements and traffic generated by the proposed development, and associated noise and light pollution arising from vehicular movements within the application site;  Disruption to the amenity of neighbouring residents whilst construction works take place; and  Potential for the proposal to contribute towards the de-valuing of properties within the immediate local area.

5. Planning Policy Considerations

a) Development Plan

5.3 The current Local Development Plan consists of the Local Development Framework Harborough District Core Strategy 2006-2028 (adopted November 2011) and “saved policies” of the Harborough District Local Plan (adopted 2001).

Harborough District Core Strategy

5.4 The following policies are considered to be relevant to this application:

 Policy CS1: Spatial Strategy;  Policy CS2: Delivering Housing;  Policy CS5: Providing Sustainable Transport;  Policy CS7: Enabling Employment and Business Development;  Policy CS9 (Addressing Climate Change);  Policy CS10 (Addressing Flood Risk);  Policy CS11: Promoting Design and Built Heritage; and  Policy CS13: Market Harborough.

Harborough District Local Plan (“saved policies”)

5.5 Of the limited policies which remain extant, the following policies are considered to be relevant to this application:

 Policy HS/8: Limits to Development.

b) Material Planning Considerations

5.6 Material Planning Considerations relevant to this application are:

 The National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework/NPPF);  National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG); and

117

 Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes 1, 2 and 3.

c) Other Relevant Information

o Reason for Committee Decision

5.7 This application is to be determined by Planning Committee as a result of 5 no. objections being received in connection with this planning application.

6. Assessment

a) Principle of Development

6.1 The application site is located within the Development Limits of Market Harborough, which is protected from development by “saved” Policy HS/8 of the Harborough District Local Plan; and Policies CS2 a) and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

6.2 “Saved” Policy HS/8 of the Harborough District Local Plan states:

“The District Council will grant planning permission for development within the defined limits to development of settlements indicated on the Proposals Map Insets, where the following criteria are met:-

1. The design and layout of the development is in keeping with the scale, form character and surroundings of the settlements; 2. The development does not conflict with Policy HS/9; 3. The development does not adversely affect the amenity of residents in the area.”

6.3 Policy CS1 of the Harborough District Core Strategy states:

“To maintain the District’s unique rural character whilst ensuring that the needs of the community are met through sustainable growth and suitable access to services, the spatial strategy for Harborough District to 2028 is to:

a) Enable the development of at least 7,700 dwellings across the District during the period 2006-2028;

b) Develop Market Harborough’s role as the main focus for additional development within the District, promoting its historic function as a market town and safeguarding its compact and attractive character.

…

i) Give priority to the use of previously developed land; …

l) Provide for the varied housing needs of the community in terms of tenure, affordability, care and other support needs …”

6.4 Policy CS2 of the Harborough District Core Strategy states:

118

“The overall housing provision of at least 7,700 dwellings between 2006-2028 will be distributed as follows:

 Market Harborough at least 3,300 dwellings …”

6.5 In this case, the proposed development will contribute 4 no. dwellings towards the Council’s overall housing provision target within Market Harborough, and in general, over the Plan period (2006-2028). The proposal will also bring back into use a previously developed site and building which is currently underused. Furthermore, the proposed use would be compatible with neighbouring residential uses.

6.6 Subject to the proposal complying with the relevant planning policies and guidance identified above, the principle of residential development on the application site is considered to be acceptable in line with “saved” Policy HS/8 of the Harborough District Local Plan and Policies CS1 and CS2 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

b) Technical Considerations

1. Design

6.7 With regard to matters of design, the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that “good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.”

6.8 Paragraph 58 of the NPPF advises that planning decisions should aim to ensure that developments function well and add to the overall quality of the area, respond to local character and history and reflect the identify of local surroundings and materials and are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping. Paragraph 60 continues to state that planning decisions should “seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness”. Paragraph 61 of the NPPF states “visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are very important factors.”

6.9 With regard to determining applications, paragraph 63 of the NPPF states “great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which raise the standard of design more generally in the area”. Paragraph 64 continues to state “permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.”

6.10 Policy CS11 (Promoting Design and Built Heritage) of the Harborough District Core Strategy requires proposals for development to exhibit a high standard of design to “create attractive places for people to live, work and visit.” To meet these requirements, proposed development should “be inspired by, respect and enhance local character, building materials and distinctiveness of the area in which it would be situated.” In addition, development “should respect the context in which it is taking place and respond to the unique characteristics of the individual site and wider local environment beyond the site’s boundaries to ensure that it is integrated as far as possible into the existing built form of the District.”

6.11 “Saved” Policy HS/8 of the Harborough District Local Plan requires the design and layout of development proposals to be in keeping with the scale, form, character and surroundings of the settlement in which it is to be sited within.

119

6.12 The proposed development incorporates the partial demolition of the host building, the erection of a first floor extension and associated internal and external alterations to the host building. The resultant building would substantially change the character and appearance of the host building.

6.13 The proposal would clearly be visible within the immediate streetscene to Gladstone Street, when viewed from directly in front of the application site, and from both the east and west of the application site. Whilst the proposal would result in a substantial change to the character and appearance of the host building, it is not considered that the proposal would represent an incongruous form of development. The resultant building would appear sympathetic to the character and appearance to that of neighbouring buildings along Gladstone Street. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal would not result in any significant harm upon the visual amenity of the streetscene along Gladstone Street, or the character and appearance of the local area.

6.14 Furthermore, glimpse views of the proposal would be had between the existing buildings fronting Patrick Street; however, in this case it is not considered that the proposed development would result in any significant harm upon the visual amenity of the streetscene to Patrick Street, or the character and appearance of the local area.

6.15 In view of the above, it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with the relevant provisions of Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy and “saved” Policy HS/8 of the Harborough District Local Plan. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the NPPF.

2. Residential Amenity

6.16 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF “seeks to secure a high quality design and good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings”.

6.17 Policy CS11 (Promoting Design and Built Heritage) of the Harborough District Core Strategy requires proposals for development to “ensure that the amenities of existing and future neighbouring occupiers are safeguarded.”

6.18 Saved Policy HS/8 of the Harborough District Local Plan requires proposals for development to protect the amenity of the occupants of neighbouring residential properties, and the wider local area.

6.19 In order to objectively assess the impact of the proposed development upon existing residential amenity, the Council has adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), which relate to matters of design.

6.20 The guidance states that there are three main ways in which development can impact upon residential amenity:

 Loss of light (overshadowing);  Loss of privacy (overlooking); and  The erection of an over dominant or overbearing structure (outlook).

120

6.21 In order to ensure an acceptable amenity relationship between existing and proposed development, the Local Planning Authority has adopted minimum separation distances, as outlined within SPG Note 2. This SPG requires a level of separation of 21.0m between facing elevations containing principal windows and 14.0m between a blank elevation and a principal window.

6.22 With regard to the neighbouring residential properties, No.’s 8-10 Gladstone Street, it is considered that the proposed development would be demonstrably harmful in respect to outlook and light. The proposed apartment building (in particular the proposed first floor extension to the host building) would be located approximately 3.2m from the western boundary of the application site, and approximately 6.5m from the eastern elevation of the neighbouring apartment building which contain primary habitable room windows. The proposed extension to the host building, which proposes windows to the western elevation at first floor level, would, therefore, sit within the 21.0m distance outlined within the SPG. Notwithstanding this, despite the fact that the windows proposed at first floor level to the western elevation are to be obscurely (milk) glazed, or in the event the windows were to be removed at first floor level to the western elevation, the building would still sit within the 14.0m distance outlined within the SPG. In view of the scale of the proposal and the level of separation proposed, combined with the orientation of the two properties, it is considered that the proposal would be overly overbearing and unduly restrict access to sunlight to the neighbouring property. Notwithstanding this, given the orientation of the respective properties, there are no concerns in respect to the neighbouring properties access to natural day light. Furthermore, it is not considered that the proposal would give rise to concerns of overlooking, both real and perceived, and the consequent loss of privacy, in which case the proposal would not be detrimental to the residential amenity of the occupiers of the existing neighbouring properties in this regard.

6.23 With regard to the neighbouring residential property, No. 4 Gladstone Street, it is considered that the proposed development would not be demonstrably harmful in respect to outlook and light. The proposed first floor extension to the host building would be sited behind existing first floor elements of this neighbouring property. In view of the scale of the proposal and its location and siting, combined with the orientation of the two properties, it is considered that the proposal would not be overbearing and unduly restrict access to sunlight to the neighbouring property. Notwithstanding this, there are no concerns in respect to the neighbouring properties access to natural day light. Furthermore, it is not considered that the proposal would result in significantly increased opportunities in respect of the potential to overlook, both real and perceived, the neighbouring property’s private amenity space, and the consequent loss of privacy, in which case the proposal would not be detrimental to the residential amenity of the occupiers of this neighbouring property in this regard.

6.24 With regard to the neighbouring properties, No.’s 1-3 Patrick Street, it is not considered that the proposed development would result in an adverse impact in respect to loss of privacy. The proposed apartment building (in particular the proposed first floor extension to the host building and its terrace) would be located approximately 15.2m from the northern boundary of the application site, and approximately 27.2m from the southern elevations of the neighbouring properties, at its closest point, which contain primary habitable room windows. In view of the level of separation proposed, it is considered that the proposal would not result in any adverse impact upon the occupants of these neighbouring properties by reason of overlooking, both real and perceived, of the rear private amenity spaces to the neighbouring properties, and the consequent loss of privacy. Notwithstanding this,

121

there are no concerns in respect to the neighbouring properties access to natural day or sun light, or the proposal being overbearing.

6.25 Furthermore, by virtue of the proposed location of the access driveway and car park to serve the proposed development, which are to be located to the side and rear of the proposed apartment building respectively, and increased vehicular movements, it is considered that this would give rise to further residential amenity impact by reason of increased noise, light and air pollution as a result of vehicles driving past neighbouring residential dwellings and adjacent to private amenity spaces.

6.26 Notwithstanding the above, the proposed development provides private amenity space for each of the proposed apartments. In this case, this provision is considered to be acceptable. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development would provide a good standard of amenity for the future occupants of the proposed development.

6.27 In view of the above, it is considered that the proposed development would be contrary with the relevant provisions of Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy and Policy HS/8 of the Harborough District Local Plan. Furthermore, the proposal would conflict with paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. Highways

6.28 The Local Highway Authority were consulted on this application and have referred the Local Planning Authority to current standing advice, which was provided on September 2011.

6.29 This application proposes 2 no. 1-bedroom apartments and 1 no. 2-bedroom apartments.

6.30 The application site will be served by an existing vehicular access to Gladstone Street, and driveway which leads to the rear of the application site. A combined turning head and off-street car parking hardstanding area, which will measure approximately 11.5m x 8.3m, is proposed to the rear of the site, which is indicated to provide off-street parking provision for up to 3 no. vehicles.

6.31 The proposed parking provision, i.e. 1 no. space per dwelling, is considered to be in line with ‘The 6Cs Design Guide’ which outlines 1 no. space per dwelling “where car ownership may be low, such as town centres and other locations where services can easily be reached by walking, cycling or public transport.” The application site is located in a sustainable location, within relatively close proximity to the town centre, whereby facilities and amenities are accessible by sustainable forms of transportation, including walking and cycling.

6.32 Leicestershire County Council Highways’ ‘The 6Cs Design Guide’ outlines that parking spaces should be 2.4m wide x 5.5m depth as a minimum. In addition, if the parking space is to be bounded by wall/fence/hedge/trees or similar obstruction on one side, the width of the parking space should be 2.9m as a minimum.

6.33 By virtue of the western boundary of the application site being enclosed by an existing line of fencing, and the proposed bike store will adjoin the easternmost proposed parking space, each of the end parking spaces proposed should be 2.9m wide x 5.5 depth. The total combined width of the parking area should, therefore,

122

measure 8.2m wide x 5.5m depth. In this case, the parking area proposed would meet the design standards outlined within The 6Cs Design Guide.

6.34 Notwithstanding the above, the Leicestershire County Council Highways’ ‘The 6Cs Design Guide’ advises that a minimum of 6.0m be provided adjacent to the car parking spaces to allow for the manoeuvrability of vehicles on-site. The turning facilities provided on site would meet the design requirements of the ‘The 6Cs Design Guide’.

6.35 In view of the above, it is not considered that the proposal will give rise to material harm in respect to matters of highway safety. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with the relevant provisions of Policies CS5 and CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy, and Leicestershire County Council Highways’ ‘The 6Cs Design Guide’.

c) Ecology

6.36 Leicestershire County Council Ecology were consulted on this application, and have advised that they have no objection to the proposed development. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development would have no adverse impact in respect to ecological matters.

d) Land Contamination

6.37 Harborough District Council’s Environmental Health team were consulted on this application. The consultation response advises that further information is required in order to ensure that the introduction of more sensitive receptors does not cause unacceptable risk to human health from potential land contamination, by virtue of the historic use of the site. It is considered that this could be controlled by way of condition(s) in the event that planning permission is to be granted by the Local Planning Authority.

e) Sustainable Development

6.38 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) identifies three dimensions to sustainable development – economic, social and environmental. Taking each of these in turn the following conclusions can be reached.

o Social The development would increase the supply and choice of housing in line with an Objectively Assessed Need in an area where there is no NPPF compliant supply of housing land.

o Environmental In terms of environmental considerations, the application site is located within the sustainable settlement of Market Harborough, close to the town centre within walking distance to a range of amenities and services.

123

Subject to conditions, where required, Statutory consultees are satisfied that the development would not result in increased land contamination risks, adversely affect highway safety or ecological interests. The development would fail to safeguard the amenities of existing residents. The development would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the local area, and preserve the visual amenity of the streetscene to Gladstone Street.

7. Conclusion/The Planning Balance

7.1 In summary, it is considered that whilst the proposed development would provide residential development within the District, which would therefore contribute towards the Council’s Housing Land Supply, in this case the adverse impact of the proposed development would outweigh any public benefit of the proposal.

7.2 The proposed development is considered to result in the creation of an incompatible form of development, which would fail to preserve the residential amenities to the occupants of the neighbouring properties, No’s 4 and 8-10 Gladstone Street and No.’s 1-3 Patrick Street.

7.3 Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary with the provisions of Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy and “saved” Policy HS/8 of the Harborough District Local Plan. Furthermore, the proposal would conflict with paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

8. Reasons for Refusal & Informatives

8.1 If Members are minded to refuse planning permission, a list of suggested Refusal Reasons and Informatives is attached to Appendix A.

124

Appendix A: Refusal Reasons and Informative

Reasons for Refusal:

Notes to Applicant:

1. In accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF, Harborough District Council (HDC) takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focussed on solutions. HDC work with applicants in a positive and proactive manner by: - Offering a pre-application advice service, and - Advising applicants of any issues that may arise during the consideration of their application and, where possible, suggesting solutions.

Also:

- In this case the applicant did not seek pre-application discussions with the Local Planning Authority prior to the submission of the application. - In this case the applicant was advised of the issues after the initial site visit. - The Applicant was afforded the opportunity to amend the proposal; however, in this case, it was not considered that the amendment would address the reason(s) for refusal.

2. The development is hereby refused in accordance with the following plans:

Drawing No. 2733/1 Rev A; Drawing No. 2733/4 Rev A; and Drawing No. 2733/8 Rev A.

125

Planning Committee Report

Applicant: Sheiling Homes and Nigel Matthews

Application Ref: 17/00701/OUT

Location: Land west of Lutterworth Road, Gilmorton

Proposal: Outline application for the erection of up to 42 dwellings (all matters reserved except for means of access)

Application Validated: 28/04/17

Target Date: 28/07/17 (Extension of time agreed)

Consultation Expiry Date: 21/06/2017

Case Officer: Chris Brown

Recommendation

Planning permission is APPROVED for the reasons set out in the report and subject to completion of a S106 Obligation (Appendix A) and the appended Planning Conditions and Informative Notes (Appendix A).

Recommended justification statement Overall it is considered that the proposed dwellings, by virtue of their siting, appearance, scale and massing, the proposal would be acceptable and would not adversely affect local highway safety or give rise to a road safety hazard. The application site is in open countryside, though adjacent to the Limits to Development, with capacity to accommodate development. The Council is unable to demonstrate an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites for housing, and therefore finds support from Policy CS2(a). This is a very important material consideration that weighs strongly in favour of the proposal.

Less than substantial harm to the setting of heritage assets has been identified, with amendments made to the illustrative layout plan to the most sensitive aspect of the site. The level of less than substantial harm to heritage assets is weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Due to the amendments made and reduction in housing numbers proposed, on balance the public benefits are considered to outweigh the level of harm to heritage assets in accordance with paragraph 134 of the Framework.

In the absence of a five year housing land supply, paragraph 14 of the Framework is engaged, and therefore permission granted unless the adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The scale, design and form of the development respects the character of the surrounding area. Residential amenity is safeguarded, and LCC Highways have raised no objections to the proposal. The proposal therefore complies with Policies CS1, CS2, CS3, CS5, CS11, CS12 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

1. Site & Surroundings

126

1.1 The application site (hereafter referred to as ‘the Site’) lies beyond the defined Limits to Development of the Selected Rural Village of Gilmorton. The site is located to the west of Lutterworth Road and south of Lynton Close. The site is currently used as agricultural land.

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

1.2 The site is approximately 3.15 hectares of agricultural land. The site includes two fields, with the existing footpath (Y88) to the western boundary of the site across both fields, and a further footpath (Y89) running east-west across the northern field. The site boundary is therefore Lynton Close to the north of the site, with an existing hedgerow and field gate, the rear gardens of Lutterworth Road dwellings and Grey Goose public house with fence and hedgerow boundaries to the east, Lutterworth Road and hedgerow to the south east and open fields (no clear delineated boundary) to the west. The levels on site fall gently north to south.

1.3 The nearest residential properties are located along Lutterworth Road to the east, and both Lynton Close and Spinney Close to the north. To the east, the dwellings along Lutterworth Road are primarily semi-detached dwellings to the south of the Grey Goose pub, with then a series of semi-detached and detached larger dwellings north of the Grey Goose. To the north of the site, both Lynton and Spinney Close consist of detached dwellings, with a single larger detached dwelling and its detached garage prominent to the north west corner of the site.

1.4 There is a footpath on Lutterworth Road at present to the existing extent of development, with no continuation of the footpath to the proposed access on Lutterworth Road (and to the southern access point of footpath Y88). A further 8

127

dwellings (with a pending planning application for an additional 2 dwellings) are under construction to the east of Lutterworth Road opposite the proposed access.

2. Site History

2.1 There is no previous planning history on the site.

3. The Application Submission

a) Summary of Proposals

3.1 The application seeks planning permission for residential development of up to 42 dwellings. This has been amended from an original proposal for up to 50 dwellings. The amendments made to the application layout are discussed further below.

3.2 The application is submitted in outline, with access the only detailed matter to be considered.

3.3 A Proposed Layout Plan has been provided and shows the general indicative layout of the proposal.

3.4 The proposed housing development will be accessed via a single new access to the south east of the site onto Lutterworth Road. A further walking/cycling only link is shown indicatively to the north to access Lynton Close.

128

Figure 2: Illustrative layout (originally submitted)

129

Figure 3: Illustrative Layout – as amended to up to 42 dwellings

130

3.5 The illustrative layout has been amended on the request of Officers due to the sensitivity of the southern section of the site, adjacent to Lutterworth Road, the access and the existing footpath to the western edge of the site (Y88).

3.6 The amended layout shows a reduction of 8 dwellings to the southern section only, with dwellings to the northern field largely as per the original layout. The amended layout allows for a greater open space to the southern boundary of the site, and is discussed further in section 6.10 – heritage, below. The layout maintains the line of the two existing footpaths, with footpath Y88 to the western boundary of the site, and footpath Y89 running south east to north west through the centre of the site from the rear of the Grey Goose pub on Lutterworth Road.

Figure 4: View from Lutterworth Road at southern boundary to the site

Figure 5: View from Lynton Close at northern boundary to the site

131

Figure 6: Eastern part of northern field – rear elevations of Lutterworth Road dwellings

b) Schedule of Plans and Supporting Statements/Documents Submitted with the Application

3.7 The application was accompanied by the following documentation:

 Site Location Plan  Proposed Layout Plan (and amended)  Planning Statement  Heritage Statement (April 2017)  Geophysical Survey (April 2017)  Flood Risk Survey (April 2017)  Indicative Drainage survey and layout  Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (April 2017)  Transport Statement (April 2017)  Ecology Survey (April 2017)  Great Crested Newt Survey (April 2017)  Agricultural Land Classification survey (April 2017)

3.8 In addition, the Council undertook a review of the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment through consultants The Landscape Partnership. c) Pre-application Engagement

132

3.9 Pre-application advice was sought from the Local Planning Authority, under reference PREAPP/16/00294. The advice sought was regarding proposal for up to 50 dwellings. The following advice was given on 29/12/16.

‘Proposal:

Approximately 50 dwellings are proposed within the red line delineating the site on your submitted plan. The site would be accessed from the eastern boundary onto Lutterworth Road (vehicular) and from Lynton Close to the north (pedestrian). You mentioned that land to the west of the site could also be under the control of the applicant (within the blue line), and could offer footpath improvements and/or landscaping. Although you have shown me constraints plans and a possible layout, these have not been provided to us so I cannot offer comment on these.

Site The site comprises parts of two arable fields adjacent to the southern edge of Gilmorton. The land slopes away gradually to the south and the fields are bounded by hedgerows. Two public Rights of Way traverse the fields. Built form lies to the north and part of the east of the fields, with open countryside beyond other boundaries.

Gilmorton does not have a Conservation Area however there are designated heritage assets near to the site, notably the Grade II* Listed Church of All Saints and a Scheduled Ancient Monument (Motte & Bailey and adjacent Moated site) to the north of the site. Other Listed Buildings are found within the village, including The Old Cottage (Grade II) approximately 70m to the west, on Lutterworth Road. It is possibly that there are buried archaeological remains within the site itself, given the proximity of much of the site to the historic core of the village.

Evidence of badgers and Great Crested Newts has been found to the north-east of the site. The site is in Flood Zone 1, with Low probability of flooding. Planning Permission has recently been granted for two dwellings on land to the rear of The Grey Goose Restaurant on Lutterworth Road (reference 16/01683/FUL), and for eight dwellings on land to the immediate north of Gilmorton House (reference 16/00161/FUL).

The site is part of the Lutterworth Lowands Landscape character designation within the Harborough District Landscape Character Assessment 2007 (available on our website). It is described as “predominantely open, gently rolling pasture” with “open views across the flatter expanses of the area” and “many recent developments around the fringes of existing settlements”. There is some limited capacity for localised development around the larger settlements.

The site has been has been assessed as part of the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) most recently in 2015 (reference A/GN/HSG/02) as being developable for residential development in the next 6 – 10 years.

Planning History I find records of the following Planning application: 87/002311/3P – Erection of 20 houses with garages and extension of estate road – refused February 1988, appeal dismissed. This is available to view upon appointment at our Council Offices (on microfiche)

Constraints and Policy

133

The site is located outside of, but adjacent to the existing limits to development of Gilmorton defined by the Harborough District Local Plan (2001) Saved Policy HS/8 and is therefore classed as open countryside.

Core Strategy Policy CS17 identifies North Kilworth as a Selected Rural Village (SRVs) and therefore an appropriate and sustainable location for a modest amount of new housing development.

Development within SRV’s will contribute to: (c.i) Protecting and, where possible, enhancing the character and quality of the landscape in which it would be situated; (c.ii) Conserving and, where possible, enhancing local landscape and settlement distinctiveness; (c.iii) Protecting and, where possible, enhancing local character through appropriate design and management which is sensitive to the landscape setting; (c.iv) Avoiding the loss of features and habitats of landscape, historic, wildlife or geological importance, whether of national or local significance; (c.v) Safeguarding important views and landmarks; (c.vi) Protecting the landscape setting of individual settlements; (c.vii) Restoring, or providing mitigation proportionate in scale for, damaged features/landscapes in poor condition; and (c.viii) Improving the green infrastructure network including increased opportunities for public access to the countryside and open space assets.

The Council is preparing a Local Plan to replace the Core Strategy. It will be based on planning for meeting Objectively Assessed Need of 475 dwellings a year as evidenced in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2014, although this figure is likely to change when the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) is published. Four Options for the distribution of housing development within the new Local Plan are proposed. The amount of new dwellings for Gilmorton ranges from 30 – 40 within the Options. A final Option has yet to be decided, but in all likelihood the residual number of dwellings required for Gilmorton for the plan period 2011 – 2031 (at present) will exceed 40. To date, the number of new dwellings approved for Gilmorton (both approved and those implemented/completed) is approximately 78.

Whilst the site is located outside the development limits, Core Strategy Policy CS2 allows housing development in such locations if at any point there is less than a five year supply of deliverable housing sites and the proposal is in keeping with the scale and character of the settlement concerned.

The Council does not currently have a 5 year supply of housing land (4.66 as of 1st April 2016) and para 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that housing supply figures should not therefore be taken to be up to date. The figures contained within CS2 of the Core Strategy do not therefore apply, and in accordance with para 14 of the NPPF, there is a presumption in favour of the development. Core Strategy Policies CS2 (Delivering New Housing), CS3 (Housing Choice and Affordability), CS5 (Sustainable Transport), CS8 (Green Infrastructure), CS9 (Climate Change), CS10 (Flood Risk), CS11 (Design and Built Heritage), CS12 (delivering development and Supporting Infrastructure) and CS17 (Countryside, Rural Centres and Rural Villages) are relevant, although elements of some of these are considered out of date (due to their restrictive nature and/or age). Saved Local Plan policy HS/8 (Limits to development) is considered out of date and therefore has limited weight. The Core

134

Strategy identifies Gilmorton as a Select Rural Village which is therefore suitable for housing, in compliance with other Local and National Policy. Adopted Design guidance (Supplementary Planning Guidance [‘SPG’], available on our website) is also relevant (particularly notes1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11 and 16) as is the National Planning Practice Guidance.

Gilmorton Neighbourhood Plan and Settlement Profile The Parish Council are working on their Neighbourhood Plan. This is in its early stages and although I have not seen any of their work, I understand that your client has some information regarding it. At this very early stage in its life, the Neighbourhood Plan carries no weight currently in the Planning determination process: obviously as time goes on, more weight will be attached to the Plan. I strongly recommend that you engage the Parish and the wider village very early on in this scheme: if the Parish support the proposal and you have the backing of the village then that will carry some weight in our determination of any application. You will need to include a Statement of Community Involvement within your submission. A Settlement Profile of Gilmorton is available on our website and I strongly recommend that you read this.

Assessment Given the sustainable nature of Gilmorton and the Council’s current lack of a 5 year supply, housing development in principle is acceptable. We do have concerns about the number of dwellings proposed and suggest this is reduced to 25, located in the northernmost part of the site. The reasons for this are twofold: firstly Gilmorton has had a considerable amount of development and it seems likely that 50 dwellings would significantly exceed the planned requirement up to 2031, plus CS17 requires that development is proportionate, ”reflects the size and character of the village concerned, the level of service provision and takes into account recent development and existing commitments” (echoed in CS11 and CS2); secondly the visual and countryside impact will be significantly increased the further southwards housing is proposed, potentially increasing its harm. A suitable and safe access would still need to be required, and this would be unlikely to be supported from Lynton Close to the north.

Although the site is on the edge of the village, the northernmost part of the site appears fairly well-related to the built form of the settlement, with dwellings to the north and east. Key services seem accessible via foot/bicycle from the site. It is close to the Primary School and seems well-connected by virtue of the rights of way.

Although there is a small drop in levels across the site, I consider it unlikely that there would be a significant harmful impact on the character and appearance of the countryside, particularly if development was contained towards the north. We would prefer that the right of way running north-south is kept outside of the red-line boundary, to ensure the rural character of this footpath is retained. Hedgerows of mixed native species should be provided, with existing and proposed hedgerows buffered from development (including residential gardens) by at least 5m, for ecology reasons.

We are most concerned about the impact of the proposal on the setting of the Listed Buildings (especially the Church) and the SAM. Historic England will be consulted on any application and you may wish to seek their comments at pre-application stage. The fields may have an historic association with the church/SAM (in which case any development might harm the setting), and there is potential for visual harm to the setting, particularly as the spire is prominent and almost acts as a way marker. Archaeology may require some

135

investigative work (trial trenching, geophysical survey and/or desk-based assessment) prior to submission, to enable a full consideration of this non-designated heritage asset. We strongly suggest that you use a heritage impact assessment to assist designing or zoning the scheme. You should include a full Heritage Statement in your submission, detailing the impact of the proposal on designated and non-designated heritage assets, including the Church and SAM. Were Outline Planning Permission to be granted, it is highly likely that a subsequent reserved matters application may be condition to be in substantial accordance with the indicative layout.

Were harm to heritage assets to be identified within the planning process, then the LPA would consider this in the light of paragraphs 132 – 134 of the Framework. Substantial harm would mean the scheme could not be supported; less than substantial harm would be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including the provision of housing at a time (currently) when there is no 5 year supply. Were the benefits to outweigh the harm, then a further balancing exercise would be undertaken, in accordance with ‘limb 1’ of paragraph 14 of the Framework. With this balancing, significant and demonstrable harm must outweigh the benefits of the proposal to lead to a refusal. Members are about to undertake a similar exercise at Planning Committee 17th January on application 16/01401/OUT, for 50 dwellings in Dunton Bassett (a nearby SRV) and the progress of this application may be of interest to you.

Although the site is within an area of low floodrisk, you should nevertheless submit a full Flood Risk Assessment, as the proposal is for Major development. Your drainage strategy must include Sustainable Urban Drainage systems. You may wish to speak to both the Environment Agency, and the Lead Local Flood Authority regarding their requirements prior to submission.

CS9 requires consideration of climate change and the effect the proposal may have on this. North Kilworth is considered a sustainable location however any additional methods of reducing the impact of the proposal on the environment would be welcomed. You may wish to considered solar panels, ground source/air source heat pumps, grey water harvesting as part of the design, for example.

House types should reflect the historic core of Gilmorton and materials should be carefully chosen to be in keeping with the character of the area. I suggest that facing brick is used, of a good quality and with a Flemish Garden Wall or Flemish bond. Some render may be appropriate. Existing residential properties within the immediate vicinity of the site are 1.5 - 2 storeys high. Any development within this site should reflect these heights.

Section 106 and CIL contributions I can confirm the Council is likely to seek financial contributions for the following services/facilities:

 County Council – Education, Libraries, Civic Amenities  District Council – Community Facilities and Open Space (including on site provision of open space)  NHS England – Health

For further information on these please refer to the following documents which are available here: http://www.harborough.gov.uk/directory_record/559/section_106_planning_guidance

136

 Provision for Open Space Sport and Recreation  Leicestershire Planning Obligations Policy  HDC’s Planning Obligations Developer Guidance

Please be aware that a bond may be required to secure any S106 agreement.

In terms of Affordable Housing, the site falls within the Harborough Rural North and Central housing sub-market area. A minimum of 40% of the total number of dwellings will be affordable. The tenure split for all affordable housing will remain flexible to represent housing need closer to the time of delivery. At present the SHMA (2014) indicates a need for 1 and 2 bedroom properties. Development should integrate affordable housing and market housing, with a consistent standard of quality design. For more information on affordable housing please see the Guidance Note on the link above, and contact Raj Patel if you wish to discuss this.

I have spoken to our Community Facilities officer (Sarah Farrow) regarding likely S106 contributions towards this. She has said it is likely we would seek financial contributions towards upgrade projects at Gilmorton Playing Fields Pavilion. Based on 50 dwellings this would be £24,900.00. However, if the Parish make a sound, evidence-based bid for new build facilities, then the contribution required would be £49,800.00, based on 50 dwellings.

To date, I have not had a response from Matt Bills regarding possible financial contributions for Open Space, and suggest you contact him directly regarding this.

Any contributions required by a Section 106 agreement must also meet the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations April 2010 (as amended) in as much as they are: 1) necessary to make the development acceptable in Planning terms; 2) directly related to the development; and 3) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. At the current time, Harborough District Council do not require a financial contribution for CIL.

4. Consultations and Representations

4.1 Consultations with technical consultees and the local community were carried out on the original application submission. This took place from 5th May 2017. An additional consultation was undertaken with all neighbours, all objectors, the Parish Council and Historic England on the revised scheme submitted. This took place on 3rd August 2017 and expired on the 17th August 2017.

4.2 A Site Notice was placed on 31th May 2017. The Press Notice was published on 11th May 2017.

4.3 A summary of the technical consultee responses which have been received are set out below. Comments which relate to developer contributions are set out in Appendix A. Comments in full are available upon request or online at www.harborough.gov.uk/planning a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees

4.4 LCC Highways

137

4.5 The Local Highway Authority advice is that, in its view the residual cumulative impacts of development can be mitigated and are not considered severe in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF, subject to the Conditions as outlined in this report.

4.6 Site Access The site access is located within a derestricted 60mph section of Lutterworth Road, a classified C class road. Submitted speed survey results, demonstrating 85th percentile speeds of 40mph and 42 mph at proposed access location, indicate required visibility splays of 120 metres which are achievable given Lutterworth Road geometry and width of the highway boundary.

To ensure a safe and suitable form of development can be achieved, a scheme to include the extension of the 30mph zone on Lutterworth Road past the new access point, by the provision of additional street lighting, is required. The scheme should also incorporate a gateway feature to alert Highway users to the 30mph speed limit and village entry. These are deemed to be a necessary package of mitigation measures, the detail of which shall be obligated accordingly at detailed design stage in consultation with the Local Highway Authority (LHA).

The proposed northern pedestrian link to connect with Lynton Close, whilst welcomed in principle, is not currently wholly within the redline boundary and does not have a common boundary with the adopted highway at the end of Lynton Close. As such the applicant would need to demonstrate access rights over the land to deliver the proposed pedestrian link.

4.7 Off-site implications The proposal includes provision for a new 2 metre wide footway along the Lutterworth Road frontage to provide pedestrian connectivity from the development access to Gilmorton Village. The LHA supports this measure as both a necessary pedestrian facility, and to encourage the natural enforcing of vehicle speeds along Lutterworth Road by providing an extension to the village street scene.

Given the above access and offsite highway works, a plan showing the vehicular access in greater detail should be submitted prior to commencement of development and conditioned accordingly as per below.

4.8 Traffic Impact Assessment No junction capacity assessments have been submitted as part of this proposal, however the LHA accepts that a proposal of this size in the location proposed is unlikely to generate sufficient vehicular movements, as indicated in submitted estimated robust trip rate figures, as to require any specific off-site junction mitigation measures in the vicinity.

Submitted Vehicular trip rates:

Peak Period Trip Rates (per dwelling) Total Estimated Trip Rates (50 dwellings) Arrivals Departures Two-Way Arrivals Departures Two-Way AM Peak 0.14 0.58 0.72 7 29 36 PM Peak 0.56 0.19 1.75 28 10 38

The impact of the likely traffic generated by the proposal is not considered to be severe in regard to the safe and efficient operation of highway.

4.9 Road Safety Assessment

138

As identified in the submitted Transport Statement there is one recorded personal injury collision taking place within the last 5 years. The recorded fatal incident occurred approximately 110 metres North East of the proposed access on Lutterworth Road. The incident was recorded as occurring in January 2014 in frosty/icy conditions involving three vehicles, one of which was stationary. The incident did not involve non-motorised transport such as pedestrians or cyclists.

The isolated recorded incident detailed above and the wider analysis have not revealed a trend in collisions data or identified the Lutterworth Road link, and associated junctions, as collision cluster locations.

4.10 Internal Layout The application being considered is outline with access, and therefore the internal layout has not been assessed by the LHA.

4.11 Conditions Proposed conditions for details of design to include: a. The provision of a vehicular access which shall have a minimum carriageway width of 5.5 metres, with 6 metre kerbed radii, and 2 metre wide footways on both sides of the access junction. b. The provision of a 2 metre wide kerbed footway adjacent to the carriageway on Lutterworth Road, extending south west from the existing footway to connect to the new access junction. c. The extension of 30mph speed limit to a minimum point of 90 metres South West of the new vehicular access on Lutterworth Road by the provision of new street lighting, and a gateway feature at the new 30mph entry zone.

No vehicular access gates etc; drainage to be be provided within the site such that surface water does not drain into the Public Highway and submission of a construction traffic/site traffic management plan.

4.12 LCC Rights of Way Officer The above Planning Application has recently been brought to my attention as Public Footpaths Y88 and Y89 run through the proposed development. Please find attached an extract overlay from the Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way for your information.

As there is a need for detailed discussion on the treatment of the Public Rights of Way I recommend that such provision is dealt with as a reserved matter and that the following condition should be placed on any outline permission granted for the site.

4.13 Conditions: 1. No development shall take place until a scheme for the treatment of the Public Right(s) of Way has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Such a scheme shall include provision for management during construction, surfacing, width, structures, signing and landscaping in accordance with the principles set out in the Leicestershire County Council’s Guidance Notes for Developers. Reason: In the interests of amenity, safety and security of users of the Public Right(s) of Way.

4.14 Lead Local Flood Authority The proposed development would be considered acceptable to Leicestershire County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority if the following planning conditions are attached to any permission granted.

139

4.15 Conditions: 1. Surface Water 2. Construction Surface Water Management Plan 3. SUDS Maintenance Plan & Schedule 4. Infiltration testing

4.16 HDC Housing Enabling Officer Our Affordable Housing requirement will be to seek 40% Affordable Housing of the total site yield In accordance with Policy CS3. On a site proposal of 50 units, is equal to 20 AH units. Our tenure split requirements are for the affordable requirement to be provided as 60% Affordable rented and 40% to be provided as intermediate or shared ownership. We will be flexible on our tenure request

We will not stipulate our specific unit mix and tenure split for the affordable house types at this point in time. We will provide our exacting requirements if and when a full application is submitted. This ensures greater accuracy in our request for specific unity types and accords more accurately with our housing need profile at a point when the scheme is more likely to be progress.

A wider strategic assessment for delivering AH is currently under review. We may as a result consider other options / ways for delivering AH. I have checked their Documents submitted with this application. Their Planning Statement appears to confirm a commitment to policy CS3 and AH requirements. (ref 1.2 and 3.2)

4.17 HDC Neighbourhood and Green Spaces Officer The Gilmorton Playing Fields Association has identified projects to enhance the existing recreation provision. An outdoor sports provision will therefore be required to enhance the sports provision at the recreation ground in Gilmorton. There is one project in Gilmorton that has received funding for a range of outdoor gym equipment. The recreation ground is also within the accessibility threshold of the site and is therefore considered CIL compliant. The triggers should be 50% on commencement and 50% on 50% occupation for off site contributions. The on site POS should be provided no later that 75% occupation.

4.18 Open Space typologies and figures are included in the S106 contributions at Appendix A.

4.19 HDC Community Facilities Total community facilities request: £36, 750. Further information available in Appendix A.

4.20 LCC Archaeology Assessment of the Leicestershire and Rutland Historic Environment Record (HER), supported by the results of the recent archaeological evaluation of the development area, have indicated the presence of significant buried archaeological remains within the application area. A technical note, supplied on behalf of the applicant by Wardell Armstrong, provides an interim account of the archaeological results of the investigation. This demonstrates the presence of earlier medieval remains comprising a range of linear ditch-like features and associated pits, within the northern third of the northern field, closest to the present village edge. It also revealed an isolated earlier prehistoric pit feature, containing evidence of burning and probable Bronze Age pottery at the eastern edge of the southern field. Finally a series of poorly dated linear ditch-like features, orientated approximately north to south were identified in the southern half of the development site.

140

4.21 In line with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), para. 129, the planning authority is required to consider the impact of the development upon any heritage assets, taking into account their particular archaeological and historic significance. This understanding should be used to avoid or minimise conflict between conservation of the historic environment and the archaeological impact of the proposals.

4.22 Paragraph 141 states that where loss of the whole or a material part of the heritage asset’s significance is justified, local planning authorities should require the developer to record and advance understanding of the significance of the affected resource prior to its loss. The archaeological obligations of the developer, including publication of the results and deposition of the archive, must be proportionate to the impact of the proposals upon the significance of the historic environment.

4.23 As a consequence, it is recommended that to prior to the impact of development upon the identified heritage asset(s) the applicant must make arrangements for and implement an appropriate programme of archaeological investigation. This will involve targeted area excavation to investigate and record the various archaeological features/areas noted above. The Historic & Natural Environment Team (HNET) will provide a formal Brief for the work at the applicant’s request.

4.24 If planning permission is granted, the applicant should obtain a suitable written scheme of investigation (WSI) for the necessary archaeological programme. The WSI must be obtained from an archaeological organisation acceptable to the planning authority, and be submitted for approval to both the LPA and HNET as archaeological advisers to your authority, before the implementation of the archaeological programme and in advance of the start of development.

4.25 The WSI should comply with the above mentioned Brief, with this Department’s “Guidelines and Procedures for Archaeological Work in Leicestershire and Rutland” and with relevant Institute for Archaeologists’ “Standards” and “Code of Practice”. It should include a suitable indication of arrangements for the implementation of the archaeological work, and the proposed timetable for the development.

4.26 We therefore recommend that any planning permission be granted subject to the following planning conditions (informed by paragraph 37 of Historic England’s Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment GPA 2), to safeguard any important archaeological remains potentially present:

1) No demolition/development shall take place/commence until a programme of archaeological work including a Written Scheme of Investigation has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and: methodology of site investigation and recording

ds of the site investigation

investigation

set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation.

141

2) No demolition/development shall take place other than in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition (1).

4.27 The Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) must be prepared by an archaeological contractor acceptable to the Planning Authority. To demonstrate that the implementation of this written scheme of investigation has been secured the applicant must provide a signed contract or similar legal agreement between themselves and their approved archaeological contractor.

4.28 The Historic and Natural Environment Team, as advisors to the planning authority, will monitor the archaeological work, to ensure that the necessary programme of archaeological work is undertaken to the satisfaction of the planning authority.

4.29 Additional LCC Archaeology comments following trial trenching undertaken:

4.30 Assessment of the Leicestershire and Rutland Historic Environment Record (HER), supported by the results of the recent archaeological evaluation of the development area, have indicated the presence of significant buried archaeological remains within the application area. A technical note, supplied on behalf of the applicant by Wardell Armstrong, provides an interim account of the archaeological results of the investigation. This demonstrates the presence of earlier medieval remains comprising a range of linear ditch-like features and associated pits, within the northern third of the northern field, closest to the present village edge. It also revealed an isolated earlier prehistoric pit feature, containing evidence of burning and probable Bronze Age pottery at the eastern edge of the southern field. Finally a series of poorly dated linear ditch-like features, orientated approximately north to south were identified in the southern half of the development site.

4.31 LCC Development Contributions See Appendix A – S106 Contributions

4.32 LCC Ecology The Preliminary Ecological appraisal and the Great Crested Newt survey are satisfactory; no protected species or habitats of note were recorded, except possibly badger (details not given). The site is some distance from the known great crested ponds to the east, and I do not think they will be impacted as long as Wardell Armstrong’s mitigation is followed; there should be no need for licensing. WA did not find newts on site during their terrestrial survey.

4.33 WA recorded a small flock of a UK BAP species, Tree Sparrow, which are declining in Leicestershire, and on the conservation ‘red list’. They have proposed mitigation, which I am happy with – 4.1.31 et seq.

4.34 Although the ecology survey was done in January, outside the optimum season, I can tell from aerial photos that the site is mainly arable or improved grassland, and therefore I am satisfied that it was possible to assess the habitats at this season. The hedges on site (to N, and along road) are not particularly species-rich

142

but are shown as being retained, with minor removal for access, and I find this acceptable.

4.35 However, I note that a badger has also been done – there is reference to evidence of badger activity on site, including the need for sett closure (WA Jan 17, 4.1.10 et seq) – but I haven’t seen it.

4.36 I recommend these conditions:  Retention of these hedges plus a 5m buffer zone of natural vegetation outside gardens,

 Vegetation should be removed outside the bird-nesting season or within 24 hours of the ‘all-clear’ from an appropriately qualified ecologist following a negative bird- nesting survey.

 Planting along western edge to be of locally native species only

 SUDS to be designed to optimise value for wildlife.

 GCN mitigation in accordance with Wardell Armstrong survey (April 17)

 Provision of Tree sparrow mitigation, see WA Jan 2017

4.37 A condition requiring Badger mitigation and update surveys prior to each phase of development is also likely, but I prefer to reserve comment on this until I’ve seen the survey.

4.38 Historic England The proposal is an outline application for a development of up to 50 dwellings within the settlement of Gilmorton. To the north of the site is the Church of All Saints, listed grade II* in light of its more than special historic and architectural interest. The church dates from the C14 and C15, the chancel dates from 1860-61, by William Smith. The Tower was rebuilt in 1909 and its stone octagonal spire is a prominent feature within the surrounding landscape. To the west of the Church is the Scheduled Motte and Fishponds. There is a close relationship between the church, motte, ponds and the system of open field cultivation upon which the community, its church and lords were supported. The system of open field cultivation is therefore considered to form part of the historic landscape setting of these designated heritage assets.

4.39 We note the submission of a Heritage Statement including an Archaeological Desk Based Assessment, which assesses the potential impact of the development on the surrounding heritage assets. The report concludes that impact of the proposed development on the SM Motte, moat and fishponds (1010495) and the Church of All Saints (listed grade II*) would be neutral. We are not convinced by this conclusion. As outlined above, we believe that the site contributes to the wider setting of the church and scheduled monument. Whilst we note that there is a relatively modern development to the north of the site, we believe that the proposed development would further erode the landscape setting of the church and scheduled monument. Furthermore, in our view, the proposed development would alter the experience of walking through the rural landscape on the approach to church and scheduled monument, via the public footpath. In our view, the proposal would therefore cause a level of harm to the significance these designated assets derive from their settings. We consider the level of harm to be less than substantial.

143

4.40 It will be for your authority to consider whether the information provided accurately conveys the potential impact of the proposed development on the heritage assets affected (Paragraph 129 NPFF 2012). We recommend you seek the advice of the local conservation officer in this regard.

4.41 In relation to the archaeological potential of the site, including the ridge and furrow earthworks identified to the north of the site we refer you to the advice of the County Council Development Control Archaeologists.

4.42 As the application affects the setting of listed buildings the statutory requirements to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings, their setting and any features of special interest (s.66, 1990 Act) must be taken into account by your authority when determining this application. This is endorsed in the NPPF 2012 and Planning Practice Guidance.

4.43 Significance can be harmed or lost through development within a heritage asset’s setting and any harm or loss to significance ‘should require clear and convincing justification’ (paragraph 132, NPPF). Your authority should also aim to achieve the objective of sustainable development, which in this context means guiding the development towards a solution which achieves economic, social and environmental gains - and this includes the conservation of the historic environment, one of the twelve core principles of sustainable development (paragraph 8, NPPF).

4.44 In determining the application your authority will need to consider whether any public benefits associated with the scheme outweigh the harm caused by the impact of the proposed new development, as per the NPPF paragraphs 131, 132 and 134.

4.45 Recommendation Historic England has concerns regarding the application on heritage grounds, as outlined above. We consider that the issues and safeguards outlined in our advice need to be addressed in order for the application to meet the requirements of paragraphs 129 of the NPPF.

4.46 Revised Historic England comments following re-consultation on the amended layout:

4.47 We have reviewed the amended illustrative master plan provided and have no further comments to make. We therefore re-iterate our previous advice contained within our letter of 16th May 2016.

4.48 We believe that the site contributes to the wider setting of the church and scheduled monument and that the proposed development would further erode the landscape setting of the church and scheduled monument. In our view, the proposed development would alter the experience of walking through the rural landscape on the approach to church and scheduled monument, via the public footpath. The proposal would therefore cause a level of harm to the significance these designated assets derive from their settings.

4.49 It will be for your authority to consider whether the information provided accurately conveys the potential impact of the proposed development on the heritage assets affected (Paragraph 129 NPFF 2012).

4.50 Recommendation Historic England has concerns regarding the application on heritage grounds, as outlined in our letter of 16th May 2017. We consider that the issues and safeguards

144

outlined in our advice need to be addressed in order for the application to meet the requirements of paragraphs 129 of the NPPF. We recommend you seek advice from the local conservation officer in this regard.

4.51 In determining this application you should bear in mind the statutory duty of section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess and will need to consider whether any public benefits associated with the scheme outweigh the harm caused by the impact of the proposed new development, as per the NPPF paragraphs 131, 132 and 134.

4.52 East Leicestershire and Rutland CCG See Appendix A – Developer Contributions

4.53 HDC Conservation Officer The site is in a prominent position on the approach into the village of Gilmorton. Because of the location of the site and the position of the grade 2* Listed All Saints Church this heritage asset is visible across the landscape on the edge of the main built form of the village. Although it is accepted that the layout is indicative at this stage, the proposal will alter views of the church from the public footpath. Moving the development mostly to the north out of the southern field has helped to ensure this site line to the church is maintained and in my opinion will mean that any development is viewed in the context of the existing built form of the village. I therefore consider that although the development will result in some harm to the setting of the heritage asset this impact will be limited. Any resulting harm to the designated Heritage assets needs to be assessed against the benefits of the proposals and to accord with Chapter 12 of the NPPF.

b) Local Community

4.54 Parish Council

 The Numbers of dwellings are exceeding any previously suggested/proposed Local Plan numbers for Gilmorton.

 Concerns for Highway safety. The junction with Main St and Lutterworth Rd is not able to cope with any significant increase in traffic. Also the traffic on Lutterworth Road is often noted as 'speeding'

 The Visual impact on landscape will be significant resulting in the loss of visual amenity since this land is 'rising' and is a prominent feature when travelling from Lutterworth to Gilmorton. The view will be significantly altered by the many 'red roofs'

 The Style of housing (red roofing) is not in keeping with current village dwellings.

 All Rights of way should have green space around them

 Agricultural land is not Grade 3 as stated.

 Community consultation documents are missing.

145

 There will be a significant impact on the existing village and the amenities.

 There is no public transport.

4.55 Ward Member (Misterton)

I have concerns that this application will be overbearing on the current visual aspect of the village, together with a serious doubt that the village will sustain an additional 50 dwellings, as there is one small shop/post office, no public transport links at all, and the village is accessed by narrow C class roads, which may struggle to accommodate a further possible 100+ vehicles.

4.56 Taken together with recently approved applications for a number of other dwellings, I firmly believe that if this current is application is approved it may well create an overburden on what little local facilities, such as the village School, shop, public houses and other public open spaces are able to provide for a substantially increased population and their relevant needs.

4.57 In closing, it is not my place as a non resident to support or object to the proposed application, but I would be grateful if my comments could be taken into account at any subsequent hearing or other deliberation to determine the application.

4.58 Local community 37 objections received from 32 households on the following grounds:

Principle of Potential for up to 30% growth of the village development All proposed developments should be considered together Question of developer development history Neighbourhood Neighbourhood Plan under development – level of housing below that Plan proposed Highways Increase in traffic through the village Increased parking problems at the school Traffic speed entering the village on Lutterworth Road Increase in peak time traffic Existing high on street parking on Lutterworth Road Unsuitable off street parking provision Dangerous access Traffic increase impact on cycling routes Layout Pedestrian link to Lynton Close not supported due to impact on Lynton Close residents Additional open space needed through development High density of development Character of Significant growth if all proposed developments are approved village Impact on the character and form of the village Heritage Assets View to church from Lutterworth Road Archaeological interest in the site Infrastructure Impact on existing village services and facilities School at capacity No existing public transport More village facilities needed e.g. scout hut

146

Potential flooding impact Impact on Lutterworth secondary schools and facilities Water capacity and supply Amenity Amenity impact to Lutterworth Road through overlooking Noise impact during construction

Affordable Market dwellings will not be affordable housing Landscape Development on greenfield land Impact on footpaths across the site Impact on the view from Lutterworth Road Loss of agricultural land Loss of views from village circular footpaths Ecology Question validity of GCN survey Deer population (muntjac) on neighbouring site

4.59 Additional representation received to all Gilmorton planning applications regarding traffic volume through the village, received 29/08/17:

‘This morning I observed seventy vehicles use the stretch of the Lutterworth Road, Gilmorton from the Crown Inn junction to the junction with the Kimcote Road / Lutterworth Road in a fifteen minute period between 7.40am and 7.55am. In my view the usage of this road is 'BUSY' now. With ten houses nearing completion on this road, plus plans for at least thirty seven houses already passed in the village, the situation can only get worse. These further planning applications, if passed, would add a further one hundred and twenty seven houses/cars to the roads through the village’

5. Planning Policy Considerations

5.1 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 instructs that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan (DP), unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 Unless stated, an explanation of the development plan polices; material considerations, evidence base and other documents referred to can be found at the beginning of the Agenda under ‘All Agenda Items Common Planning Policy’

a) Development Plan

 Harborough District Core Strategy

5.3 The following policies of the CS are notably relevant to this application.

 Policy CS1 Spatial Strategy  Policy CS2 Delivering New Housing  Policy CS3 Delivering Housing Choice and Affordability  Policy CS5 Providing Sustainable Transport  Policy CS8 Protecting and enhancing green infrastructure  Policy CS9 Addressing climate change  Policy CS10 Addressing flood risk  Policy CS11 Promoting design and built heritage  Policy CS12 Delivering development and supporting infrastructure

147

 Policy CS17 Countryside, rural centres and rural villages

 The saved polices of the Harborough District 2001 Local Plan

5.4 Of the limited number policies that remain extant, Policy HS/8 (Limits to Development) should be noted.

b) Material Planning Considerations

5.5 Material Planning Considerations relevant to this application:

 The National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework / NPPF)

 National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

 Supplementary Planning Guidance 3, 9-11, 13 & 16 (adopted 2003)

 Five Year Housing Land Supply Position Statement 2016/17

 Emerging Local Plan - Options Consultation

 Planning Obligations SPD (Jan 17)

 Gilmorton Neighbourhood Plan (emerging) The plan is in the early stages of preparation and at this stage no weight can be given to it.

 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended)

c) Emerging Local Plan Evidence Base

5.6 The following emerging local plan evidence base is relevant to this application

 Strategic Housing Market Assessment

 HEDNA (Jan 2017)

 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment The SHLAA identifies the site as A/GN/HSG/02 and considers the site to be developable for residential development within 6-10 years with a capacity of 47 dwellings (suitable, potentially available and achievable). Note: the site is identified in the 6-10 year range due to no previous landowner/agent updates since 2011, however by receiving the application proposes the site as available in 0-5 years.

 Settlement Profile (May 2015) Gilmorton has the services to support its continued designation as a Selected Rural Village. With 4 out of the 6 key services it has the level of services to become a Rural Centre. However, given that two of the services (post office and shop) are the same building, and also with a lack of any bus service, it does not perform a rural centre role as defined. Therefore it is considered that Gilmorton should remain identified as a Selected Rural Village. Gilmorton has the capacity to accommodate limited growth

148

providing development is sympathetic to the village’s heritage assets, the specific housing needs of the village, potential traffic impacts and infrastructure needs.

 Local Plan Options Four Options for the distribution of housing development within the new Local Plan consultation paper were proposed. However this has since been updated and a draft Local Plan published for the democratic process prior to a proposed submission consultation starting on 22nd September 2017. The total number of dwellings currently proposed for Gilmorton is 25. At this stage limited weight can be given to the draft policies, prior to public consultation.

d) Other Relevant Documents

5.7 The following documents should be noted

 The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, S.I. No.948 (as amended)

 Circular 11/95 Annex A - Use of Conditions in Planning Permission  ODPM Circular 06/2005 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System)  Leicestershire Planning Obligations Policy  Leicestershire County Council Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3)  Leicestershire County Council Highways Authority 6Cs Design Guide

e) Other Relevant Information

5.8 Reason for Committee Decision

This application is to be determined by Planning Committee in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, as the application is for more than 10 dwellings.

6. Assessment

Principle of Development

6.1 The site comprises two parcels of agricultural land outside the village of Great Bowden. The site is outside of the Limits to Development of the village, as defined by policy HS/8 (shown as the red line on the map extract below). Developing the site for housing would therefore be contrary to saved Policy HS/8.

149

Figure 7: Limits to development (in red)

6.2 Policy CS2(a) states that ‘housing development will not be permitted outside of Limits to Development unless at any point there is less than a 5 year supply of housing and the proposal is in keeping with the scale and character of the settlement concerned’. The plan therefore does make provision for proposals outside of settlement boundaries, but the key issue is the scale and character of the proposal.

6.3 The spatial strategy for development in the District is for development to be focused on Market Harborough, the Leicester urban area, and Key Centres. Within the rural area development is to focus upon Rural Centres, then Selected Rural Villages (such as Gilmorton). Policy CS17(a) states that ‘housing in Selected Rural Villages will be on a lesser scale reflecting their size, character and service provision’. The policy also makes it clear that development should ‘take(s) into account recent development and existing commitments’. As the site is outside the defined Limits the policy considers the site to be countryside, ‘where new development will be strictly controlled’.

6.4 In accordance with Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004, the conflict with development plan policy requires the application to be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

6.5 Currently the Council are not able to demonstrate a 5 year supply and so the restrictive policies HS/8, CS2 (a), CS11 (b) and CS17 (a) are to be considered out of date. In light of out of date policies, paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that the presumption in favour of sustainable development means:

“approving development proposals that accord with the Development Plan without delay; and where the Development Plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out- of-date, granting planning permission unless: - any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the polices in this Framework taken as a whole; or [limb 1]

150

- specific polices in this Framework indicate development should be restricted” [limb 2]

The Framework states that ‘specific policies’ include those relating to designated heritage assets.

6.6 The emerging Development Plan is also a material consideration. The emerging Local Plan has reached the stage of a draft pre-submission Plan for consultation. The Council’s Executive on 9th May 2016 agreed to narrow down the original 9 Options proposed within the Local Plan Options Consultation (Sept/Oct 2015) to 4 Options for further assessment. The Pre-Submission Local Plan is due for publication on 22nd September 2017. Gilmorton is identified as being allocated 25 dwellings in total. This is in addition to a committed 70 dwellings within the settlement from April 2011 to March 2017. It is considered that the emerging Local Plan housing requirement can be given limited weight at this stage, as whilst the draft Plan is published and being taken through the Council’s democratic process, it has not as yet been subject to public consultation. The additional 42 dwellings proposed would make a contribution towards housing supply over and above the identified 25 additional dwellings proposed.

6.7 Therefore, it is considered that the application for up to 42 dwellings in this location is contrary to the adopted Development Plan. The emerging plan allocates housing to Gilmorton, but at a scale less than this application proposes. Existing housing policies are out of date as the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing. The proposal is to be considered in line with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF states that the three dimensions of sustainable development (economic, social and environmental) should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent (paragraph 8).

6.8 As the Neighbourhood Plan has not yet reached pre-submission consultation stage, no weight can be given to it at this time.

6.9 In light of the recent High Court judgement in Forest of Dean District Council and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Gladman Development Ltd (Case no: CO/4852/2015), it is necessary to consider the impact on heritage assets first and determine if the proposal will lead to harm to the significance of the heritage assets. This will inform how the presumption in favour of development (paragraph 14 limb 1 and limb 2 as shown above) is applied. This is discussed further below.

Heritage

6.10 Policy CS1(o) states that the strategy is to support development which protects conserves and enhances the District’s built heritage whilst ensuring that new development is safe, well designed, adapts to climate change and helps to reduce the District’s carbon emissions. Policy CS11(d) states that heritage assets within the District and their setting will be protected, conserved and enhanced. NPPF paragraph 132 states:

‘When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development

151

within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification’.

6.11 Sections 66 & 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 impose a duty on Local Planning Authorities to pay special regard/attention to Listed Buildings/assets and Conservation Areas, including setting, when considering whether to grant planning permission for development. For Listed Buildings/assets, the Local Planning Authority shall “have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses” (Section 66).

6.12 The site is sited within the wider setting of both Grade II* Listed All Saints Church, and a Scheduled Monument of motte, moat and fishponds. The impact on the setting of these designated heritage assets therefore need to be considered. Gilmorton does not have a conservation area; however there are a number of listed buildings within the settlement.

Figure 8: View to Grade II* Listed All Saints Church from Lutterworth Road (church in centre)

152

Figure 9: Closer view of Grade II* Listed All Saints Church from second development field

6.14 The All Saints Church dates from the 14th and 15th century, with the tower rebuilt in 1909, and has a close relationship with the Scheduled motte and fishponds to the west of the Church. The Scheduled Monument is not visible from the proposed development site, instead being the far side of the church as shown in figures 3 and 4 above.

6.15 The site is considered to be within the setting of the All Saints Church, as shown in the photographs above. Footpaths Y88 and Y89 lead from Lutterworth Road to the edge and through the site (Y88 and Y89 respectively) to the church, with the footpath continuing out of the site to the north west into an enclosed field directly south of the church and Scheduled Monument. All Saints Church is clearly visible from throughout the site, particularly from the southern section of the site from Lutterworth Road, and is also visible within a wider landscape setting outside of the village.

6.16 The applicant’s have submitted a heritage assessment (April 2017) that concludes an overall neutral impact of the development on heritage assets, and states the following:

‘The assessment determined that no designated heritage assets would be physically impacted upon by the proposed development. There would also be no adverse impacts to the settings of the designated assets. All Saint’s Church, a Grade II listed building is located 164m north west of the site (reference 1292805). With regards to All Saint’s Church, the land within the Site is not considered to comprise part of its setting, and therefore the magnitude of impact up on the significance of the church would be no change’

6.17 And with regards to any impact on views to the Church from the site and footpaths the report states:

‘From the south of the church, there are three footpaths which head towards the church from the southwest, south and south-east. Views from the south-western footpath would not be affected by the proposed development. The southern footpath

153

defines the western boundary of the Site. Whilst the proposed development would be viewed to the right as one travels north, views of the church would not be affected. The south-eastern footpath traverses through the northern field within the Site. As such, the proposed development would affect views of the church spire from the footpath’

6.18 Due to the nature of the proposed development, and with the All Saints Church being Grade II* Listed, the Council consulted Historic England. Historic England state in their response:

‘…we believe that the site contributes to the wider setting of the church and scheduled monument. Whilst we note that there is a relatively modern development to the north of the site, we believe that the proposed development would further erode the landscape setting of the church and scheduled monument. Furthermore, in our view, the proposed development would alter the experience of walking through the rural landscape on the approach to church and scheduled monument, via the public footpath. In our view, the proposal would therefore cause a level of harm to the significance these designated assets derive from their settings. We consider the level of harm to be less than substantial’.

6.19 The Conservation Officer has visited the site and formed part of the discussions with the applicant. Both the case officer and the Conservation Officer agree with the view stated by Historic England that the application, as originally proposed for up to 50 units, results in less than substantial harm to the setting of the All Saints Church.

6.20 Despite being the furthest point from the All Saints Church, the southern section of the site, of the southern field adjacent to Lutterworth Road, is considered to be of most impact to the setting of the church. Modern development already exists to the north of the site closer to the church, whilst from further north along the east side (Grey Goose pub), the church is not as clear in views from the footpath (Y89) despite the closer proximity. Instead, whilst further away, the church dominates views along the footpath (Y88) from Lutterworth Road north through the site. Development to this southern section is considered to result in harm to the setting off the church, and is considered to strongly impact on views when entering the village from Lutterworth to the south, and also when walking along footpath Y88 into the village.

6.21 As Historic England have set out a response stating a less than substantial level of harm, the application and harm to the setting of the heritage assets should be weighed against the benefits of the proposal as per NPPF para 134. The benefits of the proposal, delivering development in a sustainable location, at a quicker delivery rate as set out above, and providing affordable housing, all in light of the Council not demonstrating a 5yr housing land supply are noted.

6.22 However, despite the level of harm identified as being less than substantial harm, the proposed development still results in a level of harm to the setting of a Grade II* Listed Church and a scheduled monument. These heritage assets are noted in the NPPF as being of the highest significance (para 132 identifying Grade II* and Grade I Listed Buildings), with the development as originally proposed for up to 50 dwellings resulting in a level of harm to the setting of these heritage assets that is considered to outweigh the benefits of the proposal. The southern section of the site provides direct views to the Grade II* Listed church both along a footpath leading directly to the church, and from wider views when entering the village from the south, with the church dominating the views towards the village.

154

6.23 In addition to Officer views and those of Historic England, the Council commissioned The Landscape Partnership to assess the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and Heritage Statement submitted by the applicant. The Council’s review of the applicant’s LVIA concludes:

‘It is generally agreed that the sensitivity of the Site as a whole is Medium. However, there is some variation within the site. The areas of higher sensitivity are considered to be along the public footpath Y 88 along the western boundary where there are views leading towards All Saints Church and also the southern field and in particular as it extends to the south adjacent to Lutterworth Road. Conversely, areas within the northern fields closer to the built fabric of the village are less sensitive from a landscape character perspective’.

6.24 In addition, the Council requested that the LVIA review provided recommendations to improve the layout provided by the applicant, including the removal of dwellings from the southern section of the site. The recommendations are:

a. a reduction in the extent of built development to the southern triangular part of the site. This is the most sensitive aspect from Lutterworth Road. It is recommended that the development to this part of the site is contained to a single access road closest to the existing settlement with properties positively facing to the south and Lutterworth Road and an area of open space including SuDS to the narrower triangular area. If appropriately designed could create a positive entrance into the village. Perspective sketches of this approach to be provided. b. establishing a suitable building line to the western boundary of the northern field and curtilage of properties to ensure there is sufficient space/vista along the alignment of the public footpath to appreciate the setting towards All Saints Church, including after any mitigation planting has established. This could involve the houses fronting to the west with parking to the rear and or a hedge/planting belt. Perspective sketches of this approach to be provided. c. Respecting the residential amenity of the closer properties to the north of the site and careful siting/if any 2.5 storey units as indicated on the Landscape Analysis Plan

6.25 Following the advice received from The Landscape Partnership and through further discussions with the applicant, the applicant subsequently revised the proposed scheme, removing 8 dwellings from the southern section of the site. The development proposed to the northern field remains closely related to the original scheme, with the southern field now more open in nature, with dwellings tight to the north east boundary of the southern field, and maintaining an open gap from the southern corner along the line of the footpath (Y88) directly to the All Saints Church.

6.26 Following the revised plan, Historic England we re-consulted on the revised layout, stating (09/08/17):

‘We have reviewed the amended illustrative master plan provided and have no further comments to make. We therefore re-iterate our previous advice contained within our letter of 16th May 2016’

6.27 Whilst Historic England have not changed their stance of the proposed scheme resulting in less than substantial harm to the setting of the heritage assets, Officers

155

consider the revised plans to provide a significant improvement in relation to the impact on heritage assets. Whilst the church will still dominate views over the site, the most sensitive aspect of the site is considered to be the southern section, with 8 dwellings now removed from this section alone, providing an open expanse of land to the start of footpath Y88 from Lutterworth Road to the hedge separating the two development fields, and onwards on a line to the church. Development in the north field when viewed from the southern part will be in the context of the existing development north of the site and south of the church, and at a distance of across the southern field, with further design proposals to be considered in detail at reserved matters stage. The amendments to the scheme, opening up the southern entrance to the site and the footpath Y88 are considered to reduce the level of harm to the setting of the heritage assets. Whilst a level of less than substantial harm is still considered to exist to the setting of the nearby heritage assets, this has to be weighed up against the benefits of the development proposed. Due to the reduction of development to the south of the site, the benefits of the development are considered to outweigh the level of harm to heritage assets.

6.28 Further details regarding the siting and design of dwellings will come forward through reserved matters, with the development proposed to the southern section of the site considered to provide an opportunity to improve the entrance to the village along Lutterworth Road, whilst also helping to preserve the setting of the heritage assets.

6.29 Following submission of the Geophysical Survey and trial trenching undertaken on the site, LCC Archaeology recommend conditions, for a written scheme of investigation to advance understanding of the significance of the assets in accordance with paragraph 141, with the trial trenching and surveys showing medieval remains of linear ditch features to the north of the site and bronze age pottery to the southern section of the site.

6.30 The case officer has considered the public benefits of the proposal. Gilmorton is a village with a reasonable level of local services. The site is within walking/cycling distance of the centre of the village to the north, with a recent appeal allowing an additional 8 dwellings to the east of the site (across Lutterworth Road), with landscape, as opposed to the principal of the development or access to services, the main factor in the appeal. The proposal would deliver up to 42 market dwellings including 40% affordable housing to help meet the needs of the District. The Council can demonstrate less than 5 years supply of deliverable housing land, so housing development is needed. The social benefit of delivery of up to 42 dwellings can be given substantial weight.

6.31 The construction of the development would also result in employment, generate economic activity, increase local spending power and provide New Homes Bonus and Council tax receipts. There are therefore economic public benefits to the proposal. The environmental benefits of the development are limited to landscaping and woodland planting.

6.32 Therefore it is considered that the harm to the designated heritage assets are outweighed by the public benefits of the housing development in this case.

6.33 In the recent Forest of Dean High Court judgement, the Honourable Mr Justice Coulson states that:

‘Limb 2 of the last bullet point of paragraph 14 of the NPPF disapplies the presumption in favour of granting planning permission in circumstances where

156

‘specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted’. Footnote 9 gives examples of those policies. One of those policies is identified as relating to ‘designated heritage assets’.(para 18)

6.34 The judgement clarifies that where Limb 2 only of paragraph 14 is applied: ‘Limb 2 encompasses the standard balancing exercise in circumstances where there is a policy restriction on development. But if the result of the standard balancing exercise comes down in favour of development, notwithstanding the restriction, then it is rational that the broader review under Limb 1, where the whole of the NPPF is considered, should be a weighted exercise, so as to give impetus to the presumption in favour of development’ (para 37).

6.35 Therefore, having concluded that the public benefits do outweigh the harm, Limb 1 of NPPF paragraph 14 can be applied once all other relevant matters to the proposal have been considered in the following sections of this report.

Affordable housing

6.36 Policy CS3 requires all residential developments to contribute to meeting affordable housing needs. In Gilmorton the policy requires 40% affordable housing.

6.37 The Council’s S106 officer states that the on-site requirement is for 20 affordable units. However, this is proposed for the site at a capacity of 50 units, with the revised scheme now proposing up to 42 units. As such the affordable housing requirement on site reduces to 17 affordable units required. The application proposes to meet this requirement. The affordable units can be secured by the S106.

Locational sustainability

6.38 Gilmorton is a Selected Rural Village in the Harborough District Core Strategy (2011) based on its services and facilities. It has a primary school, shop and three pubs as well as sports clubs and village hall, and is the second largest Selected Rural Village in the District (after Great Bowden). These facilities would be within walking distance of the site. Lutterworth is the closest Key Centre to the site, located to the south west of Gilmorton, with wider access to secondary schools and a range of services and facilities.

6.39 The site is accessible by walking and cycling to the services within the village, with footpath access to the west of the site providing a short distance to the primary school, and with three pubs all within walking distance, including the Grey Goose pub to the eastern boundary of the site. Gilmorton hosts three pubs that all serve different niches of eating and drinking, and additional development in Gilmorton is considered beneficial to the retention of existing services.

6.40 Policy CS5 supports new development that is located in areas well served by local services which reduces the need to travel for occupants. It also encourages new development to incorporate safe pedestrian and cycling facilities into the design.

6.41 Several objections received to the proposal claim that the village primary school is at capacity, with no additional spaces left at the school. LCC Education have been consulted on the application in their role as the education authority, with no S106 contribution identified for the primary school, stating that capacity exists in the school to accommodate the development proposed. The number of pupils generated by the proposal is calculated as 12 pupils, however this is for the larger scheme originally

157

proposed for 50 units, rather than the revised scheme for 42 units. With the reduction in units, the total pupils generated for the primary school falls to 10 pupils.

6.42 With regards to the capacity of the school, LCC state:

6.43 For secondary school capacity, Lutterworth College and Lutterworth High School have a joint surplus of 822 pupil spaces, with the proposed development considered to result in a net gain of 8 pupils. No S106 contribution is therefore required for secondary schools.

6.44 As Gilmorton has other pending applications:  Land off Kimcote Road – 43 dwellings;

 Land off Ullesthorpe Road – 42 dwellings;

 Land off Mill Lane – 16 dwellings (8 already permitted) in addition to those already permitted,

LCC Education have been asked to comment on the cumulative effect on the primary school should all of the above developments be approved. LCC Education have commented as below:

‘According to the latest data I have available, Gilmorton Chandler C of E Primary School was almost full during the 2016/17 academic year, however as it is a popular school, around 30% of the pupils on roll were from outside the catchment area. The data suggests that if all primary age pupils currently resident in the catchment area were to attend the school, there would be space for additional pupils.

The current forecasts suggest that the school will have surplus places available in the future.

When taken in isolation, each of the applications would not generate a S106 claim for the primary sector as the pupil yields would not create a deficit of places. However, if all four developments were to be taken together as a development of 151 dwellings, a deficit of 3 primary places would be created’

6.45 It should be noted that the calculations used included 50 dwellings proposed for this application site. This has since been amended to 42 dwellings, with a reduction of 2 primary school pupil places. As such if all the above developments were approved, at the current number of dwellings, a deficit of 1 primary place would be created. Should one of the above applications not be approved, there would be no deficit of places, and therefore no capacity issues at the primary school.

Highways and access

158

6.46 Policy CS5 states that proposals for assessing traffic impact, highway design and parking provision associated with new development should accord with the County Council guidance (6C’s guide). Policy CS11 states that development should be well planned to incorporate safe and inclusive design and encourage travel by a variety of modes of transport. The NPPF states that ‘development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe’. Access is the only matter not reserved in this application.

6.37 The new access is proposed from Lutterworth Road, with the access then turning north into the northern field and running centrally through the site. The site access is a t-junction access and in accordance with LCC Highways design guidance. The access is immediately south of the existing 30mph speed limit into the village, and located opposite the existing recreation ground, and north of a new access created for the development of 8 units to the east of Lutterworth Road. A visibility splay of 2.40m x 120m is achieved based on a 40mph design speed across the access. In addition, traffic count data has been provided by the applicant, stating a two way flow in the morning peak of 36 vehicles, and two way evening peak flow of 38 vehicles. These trip rates are based on a scheme for 50 dwellings, not the revised proposal for 42 dwellings.

6.38 From the access, a new footway is proposed to extend the existing to the western side of Lutterworth Road, allowing a walking connection from the site access along Lutterworth Road. A footpath (Y89) also leads to the west of the site, providing further access to the western part of the village, including the primary school. In addition, a footpath link is shown on the indicative plan to the north of the site, accessing Lynton Close to the north. This footpath link is proposed by the applicant, however is subject to negotiations with a separate landowner due to a ransom strip separating the access to the site from Lynton Close. This access, whilst preferable to allow a further walking connection to the north of the site, is not a requirement, with instead sufficient access from the site to both Lutterworth Road to the east through both the road access and separate footpath to the rear of the Grey Goose, and footpath link to the west. The provision of any additional walking access to Lynton Close will be subject to the reserved matters, with discussions ongoing between the developer and landowner.

6.39 The site is not accessible through public transport provision, with no identified bus service provision to the village. Instead, a post bus system operates on an ad hoc basis, whilst community transport initiatives are based in Lutterworth and can cover Gilmorton. Off street parking provision is considered to be in accordance with LCC Highways design guidance, with further details required at reserved matters stage.

6.40 The Highway Authority advise that in its view the residual cumulative impacts of development can be mitigated and are not considered severe in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF, subject to the Conditions and Contributions. The principle of access at the location proposed is accepted, as suitable visibility can be achieved.

6.41 To ensure a safe and suitable form of development can be achieved a scheme to include the extension of the 30mph zone on Lutterworth Road, by the provision of additional street lighting, is deemed to be a necessary package of mitigation measures, and shall be obligated accordingly, together with a gateway feature needed to alert users of the 30mph speed limit and village entry. The LHA accept that the impact on the assessed junctions will not be severe, and will not require any

159

specific mitigation works. Details can be secured at reserved matters stage, together with a new 2m footway along Lutterworth Road frontage to the access.

6.42 LCC Highways have reviewed the traffic count data submitted by the applicant as stated above and consider that the likely traffic generated is not considered severe in regard to the safe and efficient operation of the highway. LCC Highways propose conditions for the application including; the access to be 5.5m in width, with a 6m kerb radii, and 2m footways to both side of the junction; a 2m footway adjacent to the carriageway on Lutterworth Road, connecting to the existing; extension of the 30mph speed limit to a minimum of 90m past the new proposed access together with lighting and a gateway; no obstructions to the access; surface water drainage; and submission of a construction traffic/site traffic management plan.

6.43 The County Footpaths Officer has been consulted and has no objections to the application, with the illustrative layout showing the two footpaths maintained on their existing trajectory, together with sufficient open space to both sides of the footpaths so as to ensure they do not become enclosed by the proposed development. The treatment of the PROW requires further discussion to form part of any reserved matters application, with conditions proposed for; scheme for the treatment of the PROWs, including surfacing, width, structures, signing and landscaping; provision of diversion orders if necessary.

6.44 With the recommended conditions, the highway and access arrangement are considered to meet the relevant policies.

Ecology and Trees

6.45 Policy CS8 relates to protecting and enhancing green infrastructure and part (d) relates to biodiversity. The NPPF states that when determining applications, LPAs should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity.

6.46 The site is not a designated ecological site. The applicant has submitted an Ecological Impact Assessment and a further survey regarding Great Crested Newts.

6.47 The Assessment concludes that additional surveys for great crested newts, badgers and bats are required prior to reserved matters, whilst mitigation measures set out measures for birds, hedgehogs, reptiles and tree sparrows. Further to additional surveys required, together with mitigation measures set out, the report concludes that the site is suitable for development.

6.48 County Ecology advise that the Preliminary Ecological appraisal and the Great crested Newts survey are satisfactory, with no protected species or habitats noted, however further surveys are required with regards to badgers. The site is a distance away from known GCN populations, with sufficient mitigation set out for identified tree sparrows. The site itself is arable or improved grassland, with the hedgerows not identified as species rich, but identified for retention.

6.49 County Ecology request that additional badger surveys are undertaken and this will be conditioned. Further conditions are also recommended regarding retention of hedges and buffers; removal of vegetation outside of the bird nesting season; native planting to the western boundary; SUDS to be designed for wildlife value; and both GCN and tree sparrow mitigation to be in accordance with the submitted surveys.

160

Landscape impact

6.50 Policy CS17c) provides several criteria to ensure that rural development will be located in a way that is sensitive to its landscape setting.

6.51 The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

6.52 Policy CS2(b) advises all housing development should be of the highest design standard (in conformity with Policy CS11) and have a layout that makes the most efficient use of land and is compatible with the built form and character of the area in which it is situated. Policy CS11 states that new development should be directed away from undeveloped areas of land which are important to the form and character of a settlement or locality.

6.53 The site is not covered by any statutory landscape designation. In the District Wide Landscape Character Assessment (2007), the site is within the Lutterworth Lowlands Landscape Character Area. The character area has a medium to high capacity to accept small scale development. An extract of the Assessment is shown below.

Figure 10: Extract of District Wide Landscape Character Assessment (page 37)

6.54 The Council does not have any further detailed landscape assessment of Gilmorton, with more detailed landscape character assessments to Rural Centres and above only.

161

6.55 The applicants have submitted a landscape and visual impact assessment (Aspect Landscape Planning), of the site, assessing the site from a total of 15 surrounding viewpoints. The impacts will be greater in winter months when vegetation is out of leaf. The Assessment sets out that ‘views of the proposals are highly localised. It is acknowledged that the proposals will give rise to some adverse effects upon the localised Public Rights of Way that pass through the site at Year 1, however, the proposals have incorporated a comprehensive scheme of landscaping around a network of public open space. As this planting matures it is considered that the proposals can be integrated without significant harm to the localised or wider visual environment. It is considered that the proposed boundary planting will mature to form a robust and defensible green edge to both the proposals and wider settlement ensuring that the proposed development can be integrated in this location’.

And concludes that: ‘It is acknowledged that the proposed development will result in a degree of change within the immediate context of the site, however, this is not considered as great as to significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme. It is therefore considered that the proposal can be integrated without significant harm to the character or visual amenities of the receiving landscape.

It is considered that the application site and receiving environment have the capacity to accommodate the proposal. The proposal will not result in significant harm to the landscape character or visual environment and, as such, it is considered that the proposed development can be successfully integrated at this location and is supportable from a landscape and visual perspective’.

6.56 The Council’s landscape consultant TLP undertook an independent assessment of the Applicant’s Assessment. TLP concluded that:  The draft LVIA produced by Aspect Landscape Planning on behalf of the applicant provides a clearly-structured and generally appropriate level of assessment of landscape and visual effects for a project of this scale and nature.  The methodology provided within Appendix 1 is also generally clear and appropriate  It is generally agreed that the sensitivity of the Site as a whole is Medium.  The areas of higher sensitivity are considered to be along the public footpath Y 88 along the western boundary where there are views leading towards All Saints Church and also the southern field and in particular as it extends to the south adjacent to Lutterworth Road. Conversely, areas within the northern fields closer to the built fabric of the village are less sensitive from a landscape character perspective.  Levels of likely magnitude of change are agreed at Year 1 for Viewpoints 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13.  TLP consider there may be a relatively higher levels of effect on Viewpoints 3, 5, 10 and 11. The ability to assess the level of effect will depend on the development and refinement of the site proposals for the site and extent and nature of the mitigation.  The Landscape Analysis Plan provides an indication of the current approach towards development of the site including both developed areas and green infrastructure features. The following features are supported:

162

o retention of the existing hedgerow features to the eastern boundary of the site o the retention of the dividing hedgerow between the northern and southern field o provision of suitable open space along both footpaths Y 88 and Y89 to protect the amenities along the rights of way and views to the parish church  The following aspects require further refinement/clarification: o a reduction in the extent of built development to the southern triangular part of the site. This is the most sensitive aspect from Lutterworth Road. It is recommended that the development to this part of the site is contained to a single access road closest to the existing settlement with properties positively facing to the south and Lutterworth Road and an area of open space including SuDS to the narrower triangular area. If appropriately designed could create a positive entrance into the village. o establishing a suitable building line to the western boundary of the northern field and curtilage of properties to ensure there is sufficient space/vista along the alignment of the public footpath to appreciate the setting towards All Saints Church, including after any mitigation planting has established. o Respecting the residential amenity of the closer properties to the north of the site and careful siting/if any 2.5 storey units as indicated on the Landscape Analysis Plan  And concludes: TLP consider that in landscape and visual terms the site has the potential for an appropriately designed residential development on the edge of the village subject to production of an illustrative masterplan. It is recommended that this should involve a reduction of the development areas to the south of the site and a substantive landscape corridor /frontage along the two public footpaths Y88 and Y89.

6.57 Both the applicant and TLP agree that there are sections where the landscape and visual effect of the development will be of medium magnitude, with TLP identifying some areas of high magnitude. There is agreement as to the methodology used, and the conclusions regarding the sensitivity of the landscape and the magnitude of change from certain viewpoints are generally in conformity. Overall the proposal will have landscape impacts and visual impacts, particularly from public footpaths viewpoints to the south of the site.

6.58 The Applicant has accepted of the points raised by TLP, and stressed by both HDC Officers and Historic England, that as originally proposed, the illustrative masterplan would result in a level of landscape harm, together with harm to the setting of heritage assets. The applicants have since amended the illustrative layout, reducing the total development by 8 units and opening up the southern section of the site, identified by HDC Officers and TLP as the most sensitive aspect of the site in relation to landscape setting and impact on heritage assets. Historic England have been consulted on the revised layout plan and maintain their statement on the proposal that it will result in less than substantial harm to the setting of heritage assets.

163

6.59 In conclusion, there will undoubtedly be both localised and wider landscape and visual impacts. The submitted indicative layout has been amended to take account of Officer and TLP comments on the original proposal, with southern field now opened up from its most southerly aspect, now maintaining a clear view across the southern field along the line of footpath Y88. Development in the southern field (shown as 6 dwellings), is located to the northern boundary and north eastern corner, and is considered through suitable design to enhance the entrance to the village from the southern aspect. A proposed attenuation basin to the front and south of the site will enable the majority of the southern field to remain open in nature, ensuring the views to the church has little interruption from both the highway of Lutterworth Road and along footpath Y88. To the northern field, the impact of the development on the landscape and setting of All Saints Church is considered less than from the southern field. Despite being closer to the church, the boundary of the northern field is already residential in nature, with a large detached dwelling and white rendered detached garage to the north west corner of the site. In addition, the illustrative layout shows a degree of separation along footpath Y89 through the northern field from development, including open space provision along the line of the footpath. Additional landscaping will be required at reserved matters stage, with the amended illustrative masterplan now considered to overcome landscape concerns.

6.60 The applicants have submitted a agricultural land classification assessment (Wardell Armstrong, April 2017), identifying the site as Grade 3, concluding: ‘Based on the climatic conditions and typical properties of these soils, the land has been classed as Grade 3 (good to moderate agricultural quality) due to limitation by wetness. The land is unlikely to be of higher quality due to uniform coverage by the same soil association, of which all the component soil series have slowly permeable subsoils’.

6.61 The loss of the best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land is to be avoided, including the loss of any land identified as Grade 1, Grade 2, or Grade 3a. However, the report states that based on the published soil properties it is not possible to make a distinction between subgrade 3a and 3b, and hence identify the presence, absence or extent of BMV land within the Site. Although, it can be assumed that the Site may contain a high proportion of Subgrade 3a, especially in areas bordering land mapped as Grade 2 (outside of the site boundary).

Amenity impacts

6.62 Core Principle 4 of the Framework seeks to ensure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings and this is also reflected in Policy CS11.

6.63 As layout, scale and external appearance of the proposed development are Reserved Matters, it is not possible to provide a detailed assessment on amenity. The nearest residential properties to the site are the dwellings to the east on Lutterworth Road, together with to the north on Lynton Close and Spinney Close. Compliance with the SPG amenity standards will need to be secured at reserved matters stage.

6.64 Objections have been raised regarding impact on residential amenity, including overbearing impact and loss of light; however the illustrative masterplan shows sufficient separation distances from dwellings within the site to existing dwellings to the north and east, with further details of the internal design of dwellings to be considered at reserved matters stage. The illustrative layout shows mainly detached dwellings with garages throughout the site, with a more dense row of semi-detached

164

and terraced dwellings to the north east corner of the site (10 in total), with significant separation distances to the neighbouring dwellings of Lutterworth Road to the east due to the existing large garden spaces, with the existing boundary trees and hedgerow shown to be retained. To the north, dwellings at the end of Lynton Close show blank elevations to the proposed pedestrian access, with this access indicative only and not secured. Objections regarding noise during construction are noted, with a construction management statement condition proposed.

Flood risk and SUDS

6.65 The Framework requires that development be directed away from areas of highest flood risk. The site is within Flood Zone 1 (low risk). Policy CS10 adds that the use of SUDS will be expected and that surface water run off should be managed to minimise the net increase in the amount of surface water discharged into the local public sewer system.

6.66 Environment Agency flood mapping identifies the site as being entirely within Flood Zone 1 (low probability). This means that the site has a less than 1 in 1000-year annual probability of river/tidal flooding.

6.67 The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment (Wardell Armstrong), which recommends that ‘Surface water runoff will be mainly stored and attenuated via an attenuation basin/pond with a storage capacity of 1707m³, which will release surface water from the site at a restricted greenfield runoff rate of 4.39l/s/ha up to and including a 1 in 100 year + 40% climate change event. Surface water discharge from the attenuation basin will either be to an existing drainage ditch which outfalls to a tributary of the River Swift via a 100mm pipe or the STW public surface water sewer to the east.

6.68 A Foul Drainage Analysis was also included within the assessment. This states that the necessary foul sewerage will be constructed on site with all foul flows generated from the proposed development to the 225mm diameter public foul sewer crossing the site. Seven Trent Water have confirmed that there is capacity within the public sewerage system to accept the additional design flows.

6.69 The LLFA have been consulted on the application and have no objections, subject to conditions for a surface water drainage scheme; surface water management plan; maintenance of SUDS; and infiltration testing.

S106 obligations and CIL

6.70 Planning obligations must be:

•necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms •directly related to the development •fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development

These legal tests are also set out as policy tests in paragraph 204 of the Framework.

6.71 Policy CS12 provides that new development will be required to provide the necessary infrastructure which will arise as a result of the proposal. More detailed guidance on the level of contributions is set out in the Planning Obligations SPD (Jan 17) and Leicestershire Developer Guidance Note (2014).

165

6.72 Therefore, Appendix A identifies the developer contribution sought by consultees, an assessment as to whether the requests are CIL compliant and a suggested trigger point to advise when the contribution should be made.

6.73 Officers consider that all requests are CIL Regulation 122 and 123 compliant.

7. Conclusion / Planning Balance

7.1 The proposal is contrary to the Development Plan as it proposes housing development in open countryside. However, as the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing, the NPPF directs that the housing policies of the plan are out of date and that the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied. The report sets out that the development will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the All Saints Church (Grade II* Listed) and Scheduled Monument by development within their setting. Limb 2 of the presumption has been applied as there will be less than substantial harm to designated heritage assets. This identified harm has been weighed against the public benefits of the proposal in accordance with NPPF paragraph 134.

7.2 The public benefits of the development are of a medium to large scale due to the scale of the proposal. The public benefits include social benefits of market and affordable housing, economic investment in the local area and a net gain in biodiversity. In addition, as the applicant is a developer, the applicant has proposed an amended condition for a reserved matters application, requesting that such an application is submitted within 12 months, to ensure a quicker timeframe for the development commencing. On balance, the public benefits of the proposal are considered to outweigh the harm to the significance of the listed buildings by development in its setting in this case.

7.3 Accordingly, as limb 2 of the presumption is considered to have been met, limb 1 can be applied. Limb 1 states the presumption means granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole.

7.4 The proposal is considered to meet the relevant policies in relation to highways, affordable housing, ecology and trees, amenity and flooding with the suggested conditions and S106 obligations. The submitted Illustrative Layout Plan is considered to represent an appropriate indicative layout for the site, as set out in the report. Further detailed design and landscaping considerations can be secured at reserved matters stage.

7.5 On balance, the adverse impacts of the development are not considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions and the S106 obligations.

7.6 If Members are minded that the less than substantial harm to the designated heritage asset is not outweighed by the benefits (see paragraphs 6.10-6.35 above), limb 2 of the presumption in favour of sustainable development directs that development should be restricted i.e. refused.

166

Appendix A – Planning Conditions and S106

8. Planning Conditions

1) Outline Planning Permission Commencement The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of two years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of one years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. REASON: To accord with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2) Reserved Matters to be submitted An application for the approval of all of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. REASON: To accord with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3) Approval of Reserved Matters No development shall commence on site until details of the following matters (in respect of which approval is expressly reserved) have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority: (a) The scale of the development; (b) The layout of the development; (c) The external appearance of the development; (d) The landscaping of the site. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. REASON: The application was made for outline planning permission and is granted to accord with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Part 2 (5) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010.

4) Approved Plans The development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with the following approved plans:  Indicative Site Layout Plan (scale)

167

REASON: for the avoidance of doubt

5) Materials Schedule

No development shall commence on site until a schedule indicating the materials to be used on all external elevations of the approved dwellings has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained as such in perpetuity.

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area and to accord with the Harborough District Council Core Strategy Policy CS11

6) Levels

No development shall commence on site until details of the existing and proposed ground levels and finished floor levels of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained as such in perpetuity.

REASON: To ensure a satisfactory form of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding locality and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

7) Badger survey

No development shall commence on site until an ecological survey for badgers has submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any mitigation measures identified in the approved survey shall be fully implemented in accordance with the recommendations of that survey and shall be retained as such in perpetuity. REASON: In the interests of wildlife and nature conservation and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

8) Development in accordance with Ecological Surveys

The development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with the approved mitigation measures detailed in the Ecological Surveys – Wardell Armstrong (January 2017) and Wardell Armstrong – Great Crested Newts (April 2017).

REASON: In the interests of wildlife and nature conservation and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11

9) Surface Water

No development shall commence until a surface water drainage scheme has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In the interests of flood prevention and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS10

10) Construction surface water management plan

No development shall commence until details in relation to the management of surface water on site during construction of the development has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local planning Authority.

168

REASON: In the interests of flood prevention, to maintain the existing surface water runoff quality, and to prevent damage to the surface water management systems and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS10

11) SUDS Maintenance Plan

No development shall commence until details in relation to the long term maintenance of the sustainable surface water drainage system within the development have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The Sustainable Urban Drainage system shall be designed as such to optimise value for wildlife.

REASON: In the interests of flood prevention, to ensure future adequate performance of the sustainable drainage system and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS10

12) Infiltration testing

No development shall commence on site until infiltration testing has been carried out to confirm (or otherwise) the suitability if the site for the use of infiltration as a drainage element, and the flood risk assessment has been updated accordingly to reflect the findings of the drainage strategy.

REASON: In the interests of flood prevention, to demonstrate that the site is suitable for the use of the infiltration techniques as identified in the drainage strategy and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS10.

13) Highways design

Development shall not begin until plan(s) showing the following details of design have been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

a. The provision of a vehicular access which shall have a minimum carriageway width of 5.5 metres, with 6 metre kerbed radii, and 2 metre wide footways on both sides of the access junction.

b. The provision of a 2 metre wide kerbed footway adjacent to the carriageway on Lutterworth Road, extending south west from the existing footway to connect to the new access junction.

c. The extension of 30mph speed limit to a minimum point of 90 metres South West of the new vehicular access on Lutterworth Road by the provision of new street lighting, and a gateway feature at the new 30mph entry zone.

No dwelling shall be occupied until the scheme has been constructed in general accordance with the approved details.

REASON: To ensure a satisfactory form of development and in the interests of highway safety and to accord with Harborough District Council Core Strategy Policy CS11.

14) No obstructions

No vehicular access gates, barriers, bollards, chains or other such obstructions shall be erected to the vehicular access.

169

REASON: To enable a vehicle to stand clear of the highway in order to protect the free and safe passage of traffic, including pedestrians, in the public highway, and to accord with Harborough District Council Core Strategy Policy CS11.

15) Highways drainage

Before first use of the development hereby permitted, drainage shall be provided within the site such that surface water does not drain into the Public Highway including private access drives, and thereafter shall be so maintained.

REASON: To reduce the possibility of surface water from the site being deposited in the highway causing dangers to road users and to accord with Harborough District Council Core Strategy Policy CS11.

16) Construction traffic management plan

No development shall commence on the site until such time as a construction traffic/site traffic management plan, including wheel cleansing facilities and vehicle parking facilities, and a timetable for their provision, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable.

REASON: To reduce the possibility of deleterious material (mud, stones etc) being deposited in the highway and becoming a hazard to road users, and to ensure that construction traffic/site traffic associated with the development does not lead to on- street parking problems in the area and to accord with Harborough District Council Core Strategy Policy CS11.

17) Parking provision

Car parking shall be provided within the application site at an amount of two spaces for a dwelling with up to three bedrooms and three spaces for a dwelling with four or more bedrooms.

REASON: To ensure that adequate off-street parking provision is made to reduce the possibilities of the proposed development leading to on-street parking problems and associated risks to highway safety.

18) Landscaping

No development shall commence on site until a scheme of hard and soft landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the details of which shall include:

(a) indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land;

(b) details of any trees and hedgerows to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development;

(c) all species, planting sizes and planting densities, spread of all trees and hedgerows within or overhanging the site, in relation to the proposed buildings, roads, and other works;

(d) finished levels and contours;

(e) means of enclosure;

(f) hard surfacing materials;

170

(i) programme of implementation.

Thereafter the development shall be implemented fully in accordance with the approved details and retained in perpetuity. All new hedge planting to the western boundary of the site shall be of locally native species only.

REASON: To enhance the appearance of the development in the interest of the visual amenities of the area and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11

19) Landscape Management Plan

No development shall commence on site until a landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than small, privately owned, domestic gardens, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained as such in perpetuity

REASON: In the interests of the establishment and management of the landscaped areas and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy 11.

20) Hedge retention

The existing hedgerows on site shall be retained and in no way disturbed, including the implementation of a 5m buffer to all retained hedgerows.

REASON: To ensure that the existing hedgerow(s) on the site can be retained, to enhance the development and to safeguard the appearance of the area and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

21) Construction Method Statement

No development shall commence on site (including any works of demolition), until a Construction Method Statement, which shall include the following:

a) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

b) loading and unloading of plant and materials;

c) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;

d) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate;

e) wheel washing facilities;

f) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction;

g) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works;

h) measures for the protection of the natural environment;

i) hours of construction work, including deliveries; and

j) measures to control the hours of use and piling technique to be employed

171

has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period.

REASON: To minimise detrimental effects to the neighbouring amenities, the amenities of the area in general, detriment to the natural environment through the risks of pollution and dangers to highway safety, during the construction phase and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

22) Public right of way

No development shall take place until a scheme for the treatment of the Public Rights of Way has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Such a scheme shall include provision for management during construction, surfacing, width, structures, signing and landscaping in accordance with the principles set out in the Leicestershire County Council’s Guidance Notes for Developers.

REASON: In the interests of amenity, safety and security of users of the Public Right(s) of Way.

23) Archaeology written scheme of investigation

No demolition/development shall take place/commence until a programme of archaeological work including a Written Scheme of Investigation has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and:

 The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording

 The programme for post investigation assessment

 Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording

 Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation

 Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation

 Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation.

REASON: The site is likely to contain important archaeological remains and to accord with the Harborough District Council Core Strategy Policy CS11.

24) Development in accordance with written scheme

No demolition/development shall take place other than in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition 23.

REASON: The site is likely to contain important archaeological remains and to accord with the Harborough District Council Core Strategy Policy CS11.

25) Archaeology site assessment

The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition (1) and the

172

provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured.

REASON: To ensure satisfactory archaeological investigation and recording and to accord with Harborough District Council Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Notes to applicant

1. You are advised that this proposal may require separate consent under the Building Regulations and that no works should be undertaken until all necessary consents have been obtained. Advice on the requirements of the Building Regulations can be obtained from the Building Control Section, Harborough District Council. As such please be aware that according with building regulations does not mean that the planning conditions attached to this permission have been discharged and vice versa.

2. A watching brief for all protected species must be maintained at all times throughout the development. In the event of any protected species being discovered works shall cease, whilst exert advice is sought from Natural England

3. Your attention is drawn to the requirement contained in the Highway Authority's design document to provide Traffic Calming measures within the new development

4. This planning permission does NOT allow you to carry out access alterations in the highway. Before such work can begin, separate permits or agreements will be required under the Highways Act 1980 from the Infrastructure Planning team. For further information, including contact details, you are advised to visit the County Council website: - see Part 6 of the '6Cs Design Guide' at www.leicestershire.gov.uk/environment-and-planning/planning/6cs-designguide or call 01163050001.

5. You will be required to enter into a suitable legal Agreement with the Highway Authority for the off-site highway works before development commences and detailed plans shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Highway Authority. The Agreement must be signed and all fees paid and surety set in place before the highway works are commenced.

6. Any street furniture or lining that requires relocation or alteration shall be carried out entirely at the expense of the applicant, who shall first obtain the separate consent of the Highway Authority. This will include extension of street lighting along Lutterworth Road which can be delivered through S278.

7. Information regarding the extent of public highway can be obtained by contacting the County Councils ‘Highway Records and Searches’ Team at [email protected].

8. In drawing up a Rights of Way scheme I would draw the applicant’s particular attention to the discrepancy between the manner in which both public footpaths are depicted on the master plan (proposal) and the Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way. When it comes to detailed planning/reserved matters the applicants will either need to design the layout of the development so that the footpaths can remain on

173

their existing alignments, or, if the existing routes will be built on (e.g. houses, gardens, roads, flood relief structures/detention basins) then they will need to apply for a public path diversion order to have the footpaths formally re-routed, under the provisions of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

9. Footpaths within new developments should comprise of a 2 metres wide tarmacadamed surface with a metre wide verge/clearance on either side, in accordance with the County Council’s Guidance Notes for Developers

10. No trees or shrubs should be planted within 1 metre of the edge of the Public Right(s) of Way. Any trees or shrubs planted alongside a Public Right of Way should be non- invasive species

11. Prior to construction, changes to existing boundary treatments running alongside the Public Rights of Way, must be approved by the Local Planning Authority following consultation with the Highway Authority

12. Public Rights of Way must not be re-routed, encroached upon or obstructed in any way without authorisation. To do so may constitute an offence under the Highways Act 1980

13. If there are any Public Rights of Way which the applicant considers impracticable to retain on their existing lines, a separate application for diversion is required. It should be submitted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to the Local Planning Authority. The applicant is not entitled to carry out any works directly affecting the legal line of a Public Right of Way until a Diversion Order has been confirmed and become operative

14. Public Rights of Way must not be further enclosed in any way without undertaking discussions with the County Council’s Safe and Sustainable Travel Team (0116) 305 0001

15. If the developer requires a Right of Way to be temporarily diverted or closed, for a period of up to six months, to enable construction works to take place, an application should be made to [email protected] at least 8 weeks before the temporary diversion / closure is required

16. Any damage caused to the surface of a Public Right of Way, which is directly attributable to the works associated with the development, will be the responsibility of the applicant to repair at their own expense to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority.

17. No new gates, stiles, fences or other structures affecting a Public Right of Way, of either a temporary or permanent nature, should be installed without the written consent of the Highway Authority. Unless a structure is authorised, it constitutes an unlawful obstruction of a Public Right of Way and the County Council may be obliged to require its immediate removal

18. All vegetation should be removed outside the bird-nesting season (March – October) or within 24 hours of the ‘all-clear’ from an appropriately qualified ecologist following a negative bird-nesting survey.

174

19. The surface water drainage scheme shall include the utilisation of holding sustainable drainage techniques with the incorporation of sufficient treatment trains to maintain or improve the existing water quality; the limitation of surface water runoff to equivalent greenfield rates; the ability to accommodate surface water run-off on-site up to the critical 1 in 100 year event plus an appropriate allowance for climate change, based upon the submission of drainage calculations; and the responsibility for the future maintenance of drainage features. Full details of the drainage proposal should be supplied, including but not limited to, headwall details, pipe protection details (e.g. trash screens), long sections and full model scenarios for the 1 in 1, 1 in 30 and 1 in 100 year + climate change. Where discharging to a sewer, this should be modelled as surcharged for all events above the 1 in 30 year, to account for the design standards of the public sewers. Correspondence from Severn Trent Water would also need to be provided if the surface water is to discharge into the current sewer network, or from the landowner for discharge into the local watercourse.

20. Surface water management details should demonstrate how surface water will be managed on site to prevent an increase in flood risk during the various construction stages of development from initial site works through to completion. This shall include temporary attenuation, additional treatment, controls, maintenance and protection. Details regarding the protection of any proposed infiltration areas should also be provided.

21. Details of the SUDS maintenance plan should include for routine maintenance, remedial actions and monitoring of the separate elements of the system, and should also include procedures that must be implemented in the event of pollution incidents within the development site.

22. For infiltration testing, the results should conform to BRE Digest 365 where trial pits are allowed to drain three times and the calculation of soil infiltration rates is taken from the time taken for the water level to fall from 75% to 25% effective storage depth. The LLFA would accept the proposal of an alternative development strategy that could be used should infiltration results support an alternative approach.

23. If there are any works proposed as part of an application which are likely to affect flows in a watercourse or ditch, then the applicant may require consent under s.23 Land Drainage Act 1991. This is in addition to any planning permission that may be granted.

175

9. S106 Contributions

Request by HDC Obligation for Community Facilities contribution

Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification Policy Basis

Charge per 50% prior to  Extension to side of existing Core Strategy CS12. dwelling for new commenceme Playing Fields Pavillion – of a build / extension nt size adequate to hold /and upgrade meetings and small events Assessment of Local projects: Evidence of need supplied, including Community Provision £735 50% prior to village survey, and current use of the and Developer occupation of facility. Contribution (Roger any dwelling Tym Report, October Project to be confirmed at the time of 2010) receipt. On receipt, money will be allocated through Harborough District Developer Council’s robust grant process. Contributions SPD adopted September HDC Planning policy states that for a 19th 2016. development of this scale, a community facilities contribution is required to make this development acceptable in planning terms (11 houses or more)

The contribution request has been justified using evidence of need for

176

the community facilities based in the Parish of Gilmorton OR in close proximity to the proposed development.

Any Community Facilities contribution would be allocated to projects supporting community facilities in the Parish of Gilmorton OR in close proximity to proposed development. Therefore, the contribution requirement is directly related to the development because the contribution would be used for the purpose of providing additional capacity through Community Facility projects.

The projects evidenced will benefit the new residents of the proposed development.

The proposal is for residential development (42 dwelling houses) and provision of Community Facilities to benefit future occupiers is fairly and reasonably related to this type (Kind) of development.

Request by HDC Obligation for Affordable Housing

Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification Policy Basis

17 Affordable units Submit Our Affordable Housing requirement Core Strategy Policy to meet identified affordable will be to seek 40% Affordable CS3 need housing Housing of the total site yield In scheme prior accordance with Policy CS3. On a site This policy aims to to proposal of 50 units, is equal to 20 AH increase provision of units (17 AH units for a 42 unit affordable housing, commenceme nt scheme). Our tenure split particularly in rural requirements are for the affordable areas, in order to requirement to be provided as 60% meet the high need Affordable rented and 40% to be across the district as provided as intermediate or shared demonstrated in the ownership. We will be flexible on our Strategic Housing tenure request Market Assessment (SHMA) and later the We will not stipulate our specific unit HEDNA.

177

mix and tenure split for the affordable Affordable Housing house types at this point in time. We SPD 2006 will provide our exacting requirements if and when a full application is Developer submitted. Contributions SPD adopted September This ensures greater accuracy in our 19th 2016. request for specific unity types and accords more accurately with our housing need profile at a point when the scheme is more likely to be progress.

Request by HDC Obligation for Performance Bond

Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification Policy Basis

TBC In the event of payments required at Developer some future date, the applicant may Contributions SPD be required to enter into a bond with a adopted September bank or insurance company in order 19th 2016. to prevent any default in payment through bankruptcy, liquidation or refusal to pay.

Request by HDC Obligation for Monitoring Fee

Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification Policy Basis

District contribution Within 14 days To cover the costs of monitoring Developer – 15% of of payments and implementation of the Contributions SPD application fee or commenceme developer contributions and scheme. adopted September £250 per nt 19th 2016. contribution

178

Request by LCC Public Rights of Way

Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification Policy Basis

£5,000 TBC A contribution of £5,000 is requested Leicestershire to assist with the improvement of Planning Obligations Footpath Y87, off site, between the Policy Adopted 3rd proposed new development, if December 2014. permitted, and All saints’ Church. This would assist with works on replacement of stiles with gates, stone surfacing of poorly drained sections of path and enhanced signage and waymarking. Reason: In the interests of amenity, safety and security of users of the Public Right(s) of Way.

Request by LCC Libraries

Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification Policy Basis

£1,510 TBC The County Council consider the Leicestershire library contribution is justified and is Planning Obligations (Depending on final necessary to make the development Policy Adopted 3rd development acceptable in planning terms in December 2014. scheme) accordance with the relevant national and local policies and the additional demands that would be placed on this key infrastructure as a result of the proposed development. The contribution requirement is directly related to this development because the contribution is to be used for the purpose of providing the additional capacity at the nearest library facility to the proposed development.

Is is considered fair and reasonable in scale and kind to the propsoed scale of developent and is in accordance with the thresholds identified in the adopted policies and to meet the additional demands on the library facilities at Lutterworth which would arise due to this proposed development.

179

Request by HDC Open Space

Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification Policy Basis

Off site contribution 50% on The Gilmorton Playing Fields Developer for all typologies commenceme Association has identified projects to Contributions SPD below, up to nt and 50% on enhance the existing recreation adopted September £104,420 50% 19th 2016. occupation for provision. An outdoor sports provision off site will therefore be required to enhance contributions. the sports provision at the recreation Minimum ground in Gilmorton. typologies to be On site POS included on site: should be There is one project in Gilmorton that has received funding for a range of Parks and gardens: provided no later that 75% outdoor gym equipment. The 0.0575ha, amenity occupation. recreation ground is also within the greenspace: accessibility threshold of the site and 0.1035, natural and is therefore considered CIL compliant. semi-natural greenspace: All POS to be provided on site, except 0.9775ha, children Cemeteries and Burial Grounds and young person contribution. Any off site contributions provision: to be through negotiation of S106 with 0.0345ha, officers. If off site contributions are greenways: 0.1495 required this will either be for enhancement of existing facilities or provision of new facilities within the accessibility thresholds of the site for each typology. If more Open Space than the minimum provision for any typology is proposed by the developer, then commuted sums will be calculated on a pro rata basis.

Request by NHS GP Practice CCG

Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification Policy Basis

£10,886.83 50% should be The development is proposing up to Core Strategy: Policy provided prior 50 dwellings which based on the CS12, Appendix 2 (for up to 50 unit to occupation average household size in the area of (Infrastructure scheme) of 50% of the Harborough District Council (Census Schedule), dwellings. The 2001) of 2.44 could result in an remainder of increased patient population of 120. the Leicestershire contribution The calculation below shows the likely Planning Obligations should be paid impact of the new population in terms Policy Adopted 3rd prior to of number of additional consultations.

180 occupation of This is based on the Dept of Health December 2014. 90% of the calculation in HBN11-01: Facilities for dwellings. Primary and Community Care Services.

Consulting

Proposed population: 120

Access rate: 5260 per 1000 patients

Anticipated annual contacts: 0.12 x 5260 = 631

Assume 100% patient use of room: 631

Assume surgery open 50 weeks per year: 530/50 =12.62

Appointment duration: 15 mins

Patient appointment time per week: 12.62 x 15/60 = 3.16 hrs per week

Treatment

Proposed population: 120

Access rate: 5260 per 1000 patients

Anticipated annual contacts: 0.12 x 5260= 631

Assume 20% patient use of room: 631 x 20% = 126

Assume surgery open 50 weeks per year: 126/50 = 2.52

Appointment duration: 20 mins

Patient appointment time per week: 2.52 x 20/60 = 0.84 hrs per week

The proposed site is within the practice boundaries of the Lutterworth

Health Centre where the following two practices are co-located:

Dr V Masharani – current practice list size of 5699

181

Wycliffe Medical Practice – current list size of 10472

Both practice accepts new patients from this area and is therefore likely to feel the impact of the increased population.

Changes in medical practice, with increasing transfer of work from secondary care, means that not only does the practices have more patients now, but they attend the surgery more frequently. To accommodate these pressures, the practices will need to purchase additional equipment.

The new population would require the practices to increase the number of GP and nurse sessions to meet the needs of the population from the new housing development. To mitigate the impact of the proposed population both practices have identified need for an upgrade to current facilities in terms of practice waiting area and need for additional equipment. The additional equipment will ensure waiting times are kept to a minimum.

182

183

Planning Committee Report

Applicant: Hazelton Homes (Midlands) Limited Application Ref: 17/01031/FUL Location: 48 Dalby Avenue Bushby Proposal: Erection of four dwellings, garage block and associated access road (revised scheme of 16/01595/FUL) Application Validated: 06/10/2016 Target Date: 21/06/2017 Determination Date: 16/08/2017 Case Officer: Sarah Luckham Recommendation

Planning Permission is REFUSED, for the reasons set out below.

The proposed dwellings are of a scale and mass that they are out of scale with neighbouring properties. In addition, Dalby Avenue is predominantly a linear development. The development hereby refused would represent a break in the linear form. In addition there would be an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbours at 50 Dalby Avenue and future occupiers of 48 Dalby Avenue by virtue of the proposed access road. By virtue of their unacceptable impact therefore the proposals would run contrary to Core Strategy Policies CS11 and SPGs’ 1 and 3.

1. Site & Surroundings

1.1 The application site is currently occupied by a single detached dwelling with associated detached garages and outbuildings within a quiet tree lined residential area of Bushby. Development along Dalby Avenue is generally linear, with dwellings that are generally large and set back from the road. The dwelling on this plot (no.48) is set further back than most as illustrated below. The site is approximately 0.74 hectares in size and located within the Leicester Principal Urban Area.

1.2 The application site currently forms part of the large rear garden associated with 48 Dalby Avenue, which is set further back from the road than its neighbours. Properties on that side of Dalby Avenue all have extended gardens, thus providing a substantial area of green between the dwellings and disused rail line to the rear of them.

1.3 To the front of the existing dwelling there is a large front garden with trees. This would form part of the access. There are also large mature trees lining Dalby Avenue, one of which would be affected by the proposals. There are dwellings on either side of the front garden.

1.4 The rear boundary consists of fencing and mature trees and planting. This includes a row of poplar trees to the rear of the site.

1.5 There are also fruit trees and others on the site

184

1.6 The land is set at a lower level to Dalby Avenue, and forms 2 terraces at it steps down towards the rear (from south to north). There are therefore significant level differences.

Figure 1 Site Location Plan

Aerial Photograph

185

Site Photograph 1: showing application site and neighbour at 50 Dalby Road

Site Photograph 2 showing property at 46 Dalby Road

186

Site Photograph 3

Site Photograph 4

Site Photograph 5

187

Site Photograph 6

Site Photograph 7

188

Site Photograph 8

Site Photograph 9

189

Site Photograph 10

1.7 Planning permission exists of a large residential development to the north of the site and across the disused railway that forms the northern boundary of the application site as depicted below (14/01088/OUT).

Figure 2

2. Site History

190

2.1 Planning permission for the erection of four dwellings at the Site was refused on 1 December 2016 (16/01595/FUL). The reason for refusal was:

‘The proposal will provide additional dwellings at a time when the Local Authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing. However, the proposals do not respond sympathetically to the local surroundings or context within which they would be set. In addition there would be an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbours at 50 Dalby Avenue and future occupiers of 48 Dalby Avenue by virtue of the proposed access road. On balance, the benefits of the scheme, including the provision of 4 dwellings do not outweigh the clear and demonstrable harm in respect of residential amenity and impact on the character of the area and therefore the proposal is not considered sustainable development in the context of the Framework. By virtue of their unacceptable impact therefore the proposals would run contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS11 and SPGs' 1 and 3 and no material considerations indicate that the policies of the development plan should not prevail’.

3. The Application Submission

a) Summary of Proposals

3.1 Permission is sought to construct 4 detached dwellings and associated garages on the land to the rear of 48 Dalby Avenue.

3.2 Access would be taken directly from Dalby Avenue and would be shared with no.48 Dalby Avenue, with a new drive being created to the eastern side of the existing dwelling going towards the rear of the property where the new dwellings would be located within a cul- de-sac. Figure 3 below demonstrates the layout of the proposed development within the context of neighbouring properties footprint.

191

Figure 3

192

Figure 4

3.3 Figure 5 below shows how it is proposed to set the dwellings within landscaping that would include trees, shrubs, and hedgerows, in an attempt to maintain the current green nature of the site, and Figures 6,7 and 8 give indicative site views.

193

Figure 5

Figure 6

194

Figure 7 Site Aerial Perspective

Figure 8 (1375(2) P14)

3.4 Plots 1 and 2 would be 5 bed properties, with accommodation, including bedrooms being spread across 3 floors. The dwellings would need to be cut into the site as indicated in Figure 9 below as a result of the differing site levels.

195

Figure 9 Plots 1 and 2 (1375(2) P07)

3.5 The front elevations would lie adjacent to the access road, with vehicular access located to the side of the properties, off the cul de sac. Garage accommodation would be integral within the building.

3.6 The maximum height to the ridge would reach 10.185m from ground level on the northern elevation, but because of the site levels would be 7.475m from ground level on the southern elevation.

3.7 Materials for plots 1 and 2 would be red brick exterior walls, blue engineering brick detailing, grey roofing tiles, and coloured blue render on plot 2 and coloured green render on plot 1. There would be windows/doors/weather boarding/rain water goods.

3.8 Plots 3 and 4 would be very large 6 bed properties within accommodation set across 3 floors. The dwellings would be located at the end of the cul de sac, and behind the detached garages.

196

Figure 10

3.9 The dwellings would reach a maximum height of 10.030 to the ridge, dropping to 9.470 from ground level on the western elevation of plot 1 and the eastern elevation of plot 2.

3.10 Materials for plots 3 and 4 would be red brick exterior walls with blue engineering brick detailing, red roof tiles, taupe render, and grey frames, doors, and rainwater goods.

3.11 Theses dwellings also Juliette balconies on a number of windows, roof lights and a walkway across from the first floor towards the detached garages.

3.12 The garages for plots 3 and 4 would be triple garages for each property, and would back on to each other. A dovecot detail would also be located on the roof. The garages would reach a maximum height of 8.275 to the ridge, and would also be constructed of red brick, red tiles, and grey doors and rainwater goods. .

197

Figure 11

3.13 As discussed above, there is a significant difference in site levels between the southern and northern boundaries. This varies from approximately 121.54 at the access point, to 116.60 close to the southern elevations of plots 1 and 2, to 104.6 on the very rear (northern) boundary. As discussed above, the properties have had to be cut into the slopes in order to accommodate these differences, as illustrated on figure x below.

Figure 12

198

3.14 The Landscaping plan submitted as a part of the application indicates that a majority of existing tree cover along the site boundaries to the north, east and west would be retained. There would be tree loss predominantly in order to accommodate plot 1, and also at the access. This includes loss of a street tree just outside the site boundary on Dalby Avenue.

3.15 The plans include for new tree, hedge and shrub planting alongside the access road towards the development, and also within the individual plots.

3.16 Given the site levels, it is necessary to incorporate retaining walls within the development and these can be evidenced predominantly along the access road, between the existing dwelling and plot 1, to the side of the garages relating to plots 3 and 4 as they face onto the access road, and between plots 3 and 4.

Figure 13

b) Schedule of Plans and Supporting Statements/Documents

3.17 The application has been accompanied by the following plans and supporting statements:

 Existing Topographical Survey 1375(2) P02  Plot Analysis 1375(2)P17  Site Access Street Scene Study 1375(2) P18  Plots 1 and 2 Elevations 1375(2) P07  Plots 3 and 4 (2) Elevations P11  Plots 3 and 4 Garage Elevations 1375(2) P13  Plots 3 and 4 Lower Floor Plan 1375(2) P08  Site Sections 1375 P16  Plots 1 and 2 Lower Floor Plan 1375(2) P04

199

 Plots 1 and 2 Middle Floor Plan 1375(2) P05  Plots 1 and 2 Top Floor Plan 1375(2) P06  Plots 3 and 4 Middle Floor Plan 1375(2) P09  Plots 3 and 4 Top Floor Plan 1375(2)P10  Plots 3 and 4 Garage Plans 1375(2) P12  Site Plan 1375(2) P03  Landscape Masterplan GL0763 01  Site Aerial Perspective 1375 P15  Proposed Site Views 1375(2) P14  Site Location 1375(2) P01  Ecology Scoping Survey May 2016  Initial Assessment of Noise and Vibration Letter dated 29th November 2016  Planning Statement June 2017  Tree Survey 29 June 2016  Bloors Composite Plan

4. Consultations and Representations

4.1 Following validation, consultations with technical consultees and the local community were carried out.

4.2 A summary of the technical consultee responses received are set out below. If you wish to view the comments in full, please go to: www.harborough.gov.uk/planning a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees

4.3 HDC Contaminated Land Officer

Recommends conditions

4.4 LCC Forestry Officer

In summary, and with reference to the large mature LCC Horse Chestnut tree in the verge that would need to be removed to gain access to this proposed development the Officer says:

‘I would have to take further advice on this, but LCC would not normally agree to such a removal especially such a large , mature and healthy individual which is an intrinsic element of the avenue. In essence this is a public asset loss to benefit a private gain.

In the event of LCC agreeing to its removal to permit the development (since LCC are not strictly in the business of obstructing otherwise acceptable developments), the developer would be required to compensate LCC for the amenity value of the tree, for the provision of new tree planting; unfortunately this could not be in Dalby Avenue itself (other than possibly a few verge plots which do not currently have trees) but would be a contribution to the wider benefit of the area.

I have estimated the amenity value of the tree in question using a method called CAVAT, which is widely used to determine tree ‘value’. This value is £79,243’.

200

4.5 LCC Ecology

‘The application site appears to currently be a large garden. The Ecology Survey submitted in support of the application (Hillier Ecology, May 2016) is satisfactory and no evidence of protected species or significant habitats were recorded. We would, however, recommend that any removal of trees is kept to a minimum. The current proposed layout is acceptable, as this provides large gardens adjacent to the dismantled railway which acts as a wildlife corridor locally. Any amendments to the layout should retain the buffer between the housing and the railway’.

4.6 LCC Archaeology

‘Having reviewed the application against the Leicestershire and Rutland Historic Environment Record (HER), we do not believe the proposal will result in a significant direct or indirect impact upon the archaeological interest or setting of any known or potential heritage assets. We would therefore advise that the application warrants no further archaeological action (NPPF Section 12, para. 128-129)’.

4.7 LCC Highways

Suggested Conditions

b) Pre-application Engagement

4.8 Following refusal of the previous application (16/01595/FUL), informal discussions were held regarding clarification on the reasons for refusal and means by which to address concerns.

C) Local Community

4.9 Thurnby and Bushby Parish Council

OBJECT on the following grounds:

 Excessive development which is out of character with the street scene (a quiet tree- lined ‘cul-de-sac’ avenue of individual properties).  Impact of the development on 50 Dalby Avenue, in particular the access road.

 Backland development to an established host property, resulting in a disproportionate garden for the host property and impact on its original design and outlook.

 Width of the access road is excessive for a development of four dwellings.

 Ecology - concerns at proposed removal of trees, (including a mature road side tree), some of which may be subject to TPO. It is understood that a Cedar (TPO) has already been removed from the side garden to the host property.

 Ecology - existing substantive garden contributes to the wildlife corridor to the north of Dalby Avenue.

201

 Ecology and visual impact – concern at substantial use of solid boundary walls rather than hedging.

Additional comments 21/07/2017:

The Parish Council considered the application at the meeting held on 10 July 2017 and agreed that, while the revisions appear to soften the use of solid boundary walls, other issues raised by the PC in relation to planning application 16/01595/FUL remain. It was therefore RESOLVED to OBJECT to the current application.

4.10 Letters of objection have been received from 6 separate addresses raising the following points in summary (for more details please refer to the letters on file):

 Access Road too close to their dwelling (no. 50 Dalby Avenue) – will affect with noise and vibration especially with rumble strips outside lounge and dining room  Proximity of access to both 48 and 50 Dalby Avenue will seriously affect their amenity

 Lights will shine into windows

 Properties will have more that 4 cars each given the size of them

 Against the charter of the Avenue.

 Will create more traffic on an already narrow road

 No need given empty houses and planning application in field behind.

 Problems with regards to refuse lorries already who have to reverse up the Avenue

 Loss of tree will be a huge loss

 Think cul de sac has been designed in a way to be extended later

 Amount of trees to be felled will drastically affect the wildlife such as owl, woodpecker, resident pheasant.

 Will not be a driveway, will be a road

 Will impact on the character of the area and setting and amenity of 2 dwellings

 NPPF has policies relating to development of residential gardens

 Any reference to the Jelson development to the north is irrelevant as the dismantled railway line is now a heavily treed visual barrier that comes in between.

202

 Difficulties in levelling/terracing for development would cause unacceptable environmental degradation. Consequently, previous applications and appeals on this sloping area have included environmental reasons for refusal

 Looking at the house footprint sizes table submitted with the application the vast majority of nearby housing has footprints less than 143m2 (the size of the smallest of the proposed houses). Only two are bigger than 196m2 (the size of the biggest of the proposed houses) and they are both bungalows or split level houses which do take up more ground area

 The roadside tree proposed for removal is protected by virtue of it being a County Council tree. The proposed financial mitigation is not the point - the tree will be lost.

 A line of hedge will also be permanently lost. The proposed access road makes a gash and destroys the frontage of No 48. No other dwelling in the road has a road snaking through its front garden.

 Dalby Avenue is too narrow to accommodate turning lorries or parked contractors vehicles. A construction management plan to accommodate these on site is required

 This application has been submitted as a very small allegedly unobtrusive development. However, if approved, it will be very difficult to refuse other backland garden development. Such potential cumulation of small developments will gradually erode this particularly attractive arm of the road, perhaps the heart of Dalby Avenue

 This is not about building a matching residential property, this is about building an oppressive, commercial new village in the back of a historically quiet road. A sensible building which keeps inline with the character of the road, respects the neighbours would be welcome, but this development means a 12% increase in population on this street

 This size of property will result in constant traffic, which leads to increased noise, air and light pollution thus will lose its tranquillity which is harmful for both the wild life we have in this area and the residents too.

 'Residential Road and Footpaths Standard's' said that the carriageway must be a minimum width of 5.5 metres when a road serves as an access road to 5 properties or less and is a maximum of 40 metres in length no footways are required, but the said access road is much longer than 40 metres so footpaths must be required?

 In the future if development grows then could end up with a queue of traffic revving engines etc. next to property

203

 What I cannot understand is why Hazleton Homes didn't go ahead with the purchase of no:50? It would have a lot more sense making it safe for all concerned

 Loss of a mature horse chestnut road side tree and hence loss of foliage 5. Planning Policy Considerations

5.1 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that:

“Where in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the Development Plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material consideration indicates otherwise.”

5.3 The current Local Development Plan consists of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2006-2028 (adopted November 2011) and Saved Policies of the Harborough District Local Plan (adopted 2001).

5.4 The most relevant policies to this application are, Core Strategy Policy CS2 Delivering New Housing, Core Strategy Policy CS11: Promoting Design and Built Heritage, CS15 Leicester Principal Urban Area b) Material Planning Considerations

 Supplementary Planning Guidance

The Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes relevant to this application are Supplementary Guidance Note No.1 (Design Principles to be Applied in Harborough District), SPG Note 3 ‘Development of Single Plots, small groups of developments and residential developments within Conservation Areas, and SPG Note 9 Landscape and New Development,

 The National Planning Policy Framework

6. Assessment

Principle of Development

6.1 Policy CS15 identifies Thurnby and Bushby as being within the Leicester Principal Urban Area where development is expected to be of a scale and type that will safeguard their identity, and not undermine the regeneration and development objectives of Leicester City and of Oadby and Wigston.

6.2 As the application under consideration relates to an existing residential garden, paragraph 53 of the NPPF is pertinent which says that:

204

‘Local planning authorities should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area’

Design and Visual Impact

6.3 Policy CS11 of the Adopted Core Strategy ‘Promoting Design and Built Heritage’ and Supplementary Guidance Note No.1 ‘Design Principles to be Applied in Harborough District’ require development to respect and enhance the character, building materials and distinctiveness of the area in which it would be situated. All development is also expected to respect the context in which it is taking place and respond to the unique characteristics of the individual site, and the wider local environment, in order to ensure that it is integrated, as far as possible, into the existing built form.

6.4 Supplementary Guidance Note No.3 (Development of Single Plots, small groups of developments and residential developments within Conservation Areas) also says that new dwellings on small plots must be sympathetic to, and complement the character of the surrounding built form in terms of layout, design and materials and that where more than one dwelling is proposed, the relationship of the proposed dwellings to each other and to the existing built form must be taken into account.

6.5 Additionally it says that

‘In general, new dwellings should not dominate, although in certain circumstances a dominant dwelling can act as a focal point and can add interest in the streetscene. The solution chosen for each plot will vary. The siting of the proposed dwelling(s) should complement the layout of adjacent properties and should ensure that the amenities of existing occupiers and future occupiers of the proposed dwelling(s) are given careful consideration’. and

‘Careful consideration must be given to the siting of dwelling(s) on a plot to ensure that the amenities of occupiers of existing dwellings and the proposed dwelling(s) are not adversely affected. The position of the dwelling(s) must also integrate well into the existing built form’.

6.6 Building plots should therefore normally be of similar size and shape to those prevailing in the immediate area.

6.7 Dalby Avenue consists of predominantly linear development with dwellings generally fronting onto the road, with good sized front gardens between themselves and the front elevation of the dwellings. The host dwelling 48 Dalby Avenue is however the exception to the norm on the northern side of the road, being set back further than neighbouring properties. No 48 also has a substantially larger rear garden than neighbouring properties.

6.8 A schedule has been submitted with the application to show the existing context in terms of % of plot covered by house footprint. Notwithstanding errors in a couple of the calculations therein, there is a range from 3% to 33% (50 Dalby Avenue). A majority of the higher footprints are located on the southern side of the road.

6.9 The proposals for the site include the creation of a cul de sac within an area of land that can be classified as ‘backland’. It would create a new spur of or urbanising development to the rear of Dalby road that is out of line with the existing residential properties.

205

6.10 The revised plans submitted with this application have not altered the number or position of the proposed dwellings from the original proposal and so it remains the case that the dwellings are reasonably large relative to the plot size.

6.11 By virtue of the fact that plots 3 and 4 need to be cut into the site due to significant site level differences, access to their garages which are set to the front of these properties is via a glass sided walkway from the front door which is located on the middle floor as shown below. Whilst it is understood that this is the most suitable option given the levels, it does create a significantly different house type and urbanising and incongruous effect within this particular context.

Figure 14

6.12 The footprints of Plots 1 and 2 17% and 24% respectively, but it is recognised that the applicant has tried to address initial concerns by softening their appearance such that they appear less incongruous and more open.

6.13 The level differences also result in Plots 1 and 2 lying significantly above Plots 3 and 4. This can be seen in Figure 5 above. The result is that Plots 1 and 2 will appear overly dominant in relation to plots 3 and 4.

6.14 The applicants have aimed to address my initial concerns regarding the excessive use of brick walling and hard landscaping along the long access road into the development which was very out of keeping with the green surroundings of the local area. This element of the scheme would therefore be considered as more acceptable and help the development fit more appropriately within the locale. In addition, the introduction of render further softens the overall appearance. Improvements would however need to be made in terms of improving the level and density of planting to the land at the rear of 50 Dalby Avenue, and also in terms of density and soundproofing between 50 Dalby Avenue and the access road. It is noted however that such improvements could be conditioned in the event of an approval.

6.15 In conclusion, the applicant has tried to improve on the previous proposals by introducing a softer and greener approach to the overall development, and it is acknowledged that

206

this is indeed an improvement. However, this does not negate concerns regarding the urbanising effect of the development on a backland site, and the creation of an urbanising effect on the character of the local area. The proposals are therefore considered contrary to Policy CS11 of the Adopted Core Strategy, and also SPG’S 1 and 3.

Neighbour Impact

6.17 Access drives serving backland sites should be suitably located away from existing dwellings to avoid noise and visual disruption.

6.18 In this case, the access road would snake around 48 Dalby Avenue down towards the rear of the site. In doing so, the new access point from Dalby Avenue, and the road itself would pass closer to no. 50 Dalby Avenue.

6.19 In addition, whilst the current occupiers of no. 48 Dalby Avenue may be willing to accept the additional disturbance as the access comes very close to their gable end, it is also necessary to consider the impact on future residents of the property.

6.20 Given the close proximity of the road to both the above properties, and the angle of the road I am not satisfied that the amenity of the neighbours can be preserved.

6.21 With regard to potential noise from vehicles passing the two dwellings, the applicant has submitted a report that indicates that the cars travelling at an anticipated 10mph into the access road, and on a smooth road surface, would not exceed established acceptable levels. The assessment does not appear to have taken into account the proposed granite sett rumble strip.

Landscaping and trees

6.22 The application site is currently garden area that is surrounded by trees and hedgerows, and contains trees within the site. It therefore presents a very green appearance within the wider area, which is in context with the garden areas of adjacent properties.

6.33 The plans submitted with this application have taken on board concerns expressed as a part of the previously refused application, in that the site as proposed is much more sympathetic incorporating more hedgerows and planting overall to help it blend in more naturally with the immediate locale.

6.64 However, the plans would necessitate the removal of the very large horse chestnut in the verge of Dalby Avenue in order to create the proposed access.

6.65 I have been advised by the LCC Forestry Team Leader that LCC would usually not agree to such a removal, especially of such a large , mature and healthy individual which is an intrinsic element of the avenue (which is tree lined). In essence this is a public asset loss to benefit a private gain.

6.66 It is of note that LCC also advise that it would not be possible to replace the tree within Dalby Avenue, rather a new suitable location would need to be found in the vicinity.

6.67 In Officer opinion therefore, whilst the proposals have more suitable sought to respond to the local environment, the removal of the tree would present a public loss of an important tree that provides a positive contribution to the street scene.

207

Drainage

6.68 No proposals have been included in relation to drainage for the site. In the event of an approval it would be necessary to include a condition requiring details prior to any works taking place. This is all the more important given the level differences.

7. The Planning Balance / Conclusion

7.1 Whilst the principle of development within Thurnby and Bushby is generally acceptable, the NPPF at paragraph 53 says that in relation to an existing residential garden Local Planning Authorities should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area.

7.2 The applicants have tried to address concerns expressed regarding their initial proposals by significantly increasing the level of landscaping associated with the development, and introducing render. These improvements have been welcomed, and definitely improve the overall impact of the proposals within their local context.

7.3 Nonetheless, it is necessary to consider whether these improvements on their own would now weigh more heavily in the planning balance.

7.4 In this case, having considered the issues as outlined above, it is clear that the proposals are of a scale and design that does not respond sympathetically to the local surroundings, including size and type of properties that lie more immediately adjacent.

7.5 In addition, the proposals would necessitate the removal of a large Horse Chestnut tree, located on the grass verge within land not controlled by the applicant. The tree is owned by LCC and makes an important contribution to the tree lined street.

7.6 The proposals would also have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbours at 50 Dalby Avenue and future occupiers of 48 Dalby Avenue by virtue of the proposed access road. In the case of no. 48 Dalby Avenue the access passes close to the south eastern corner, although it is noted that a proposed hedge would screen some element of disturbance,

7.7 As a result I have recommended refusal of the application for the reason set out below.

Reason for Refusal.

7.8 The proposed dwellings are of a scale and mass that they are out of scale with neighbouring properties. In addition, Dalby Avenue is predominantly a linear development. The development hereby refused would represent a break in the linear form. In addition there would be an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbours at 50 Dalby Avenue and future occupiers of 48 Dalby Avenue by virtue of the proposed access road. By virtue of their unacceptable impact therefore the proposals would run contrary to Core Strategy Policies CS11 and SPGs’ 1 and 3.

208

Planning Committee Report

Applicant: Mr & Mrs P Lattimore

Application Ref: 17/01153/FUL

Location: Summerhays, 4 Broadgate, Great Easton, Leicestershire, LE16 8SH.

Proposal: Erection of single storey side-rear extension.

Application Validated: 10/07/2017

Target Date: 04/09/2017 (Extension of time agreed until 22/09/2017)

Consultation Expiry Date: 24/08/2017

Site Visit Date: 26/07/2017

Case Officer: Jeremy Eaton

Recommendation

Planning Permission is APPROVED, for the reasons set out below, subject to;

 The conditions set out in Appendix A.

The extensions/alterations hereby approved will respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling, and will not result in any adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the local area, including the streetscene to Broadgate, nor the Great Easton Conservation Area. In addition, the proposal would not result in any adverse harm in respect of the residential amenity to the occupants of neighbouring properties or in respect to matters of highway safety. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to accord with Policies CS1, CS11 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy, and Policy HS/8 of the Harborough District Local Plan, and no other material considerations indicate that the policies of the development plan should not prevail. Furthermore, the decision has been reached taking into account paragraphs 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

1. Site & Surroundings

1.9 The application site is located to the north-western side of Broadgate within the Development Limits to the village of Great Easton. The site relates to the residential property of Summerhays (No. 4 Broadgate). Residential properties, No. 53 Main Street, No. 6 Broadgate and No. 2 Holt View adjoin the northern-eastern, south- western and north-western boundaries of the application site respectively.

1.10 The site is occupied by a 2-bed detached single-storey bungalow. To the front and side of the dwelling is a driveway and front private amenity space. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site is achieved directly off of Broadgate. To the rear of the dwelling is a further, larger-sized area of private amenity space.

1.11 The application site is located within the Great Easton Conservation Area.

209

Figure 1: Site Location

210

Figure 2: Existing Floor Plans & Elevations

2. Site History

2.1 The application site has previously been the subject of the following planning application(s):

o 05/01837/FUL – Erection of a single storey extension to the rear – Approved (18.01.20016); o 06/01660/TCA – Works to trees – Approved (12.12.2006); and o 12/00063/TCA – Works to trees – Approved (07.03.2012).

3. The Application Submission

a) Summary of Proposals

3.1 This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a single-storey side and rear extension, associated internal and external alterations to the host dwelling and for alterations to the existing site access.

3.2 The side single-storey extension element of the proposed development is to measure approximately 2.2m width x 5.2m length x 2.4m height (eaves) x 3.9m height (ridge). It will be sited approximately 7.5m back from the existing front building line of the host dwelling, and will project approximately 0.9m from the existing rear building line.

211

It will be inset approximately 0.25m from the south-western boundary of the application site.

3.3 The rear single-storey extension element of the proposed development is to measure approximately 4.6m width x 4.9m length x 2.9m height (eaves) x 4.4m height (ridge). It will project approximately 4.9m from the existing rear building line of the host dwelling. It will be inset approximately 2.4m from the south-western boundary of the application site, and approximately 5.0m from the north-eastern boundary of the site at its closest point.

3.4 Minor associated internal and external alterations are proposed to the host dwelling. Internal changes relate to the re-configuration of the internal areas of the dwelling, whilst external changes include the removal of an existing door and window to the existing kitchen and infilling with a wall with a single larger-sized window, replacement of existing dining room door/windows to the rear elevation and the partial rendering of the walls to the dwelling, those to the south-west and north-west elevations.

3.5 The materials indicated for the proposed extensions include a mix of render and brickwork to the walls, under a concrete tiled roof. Fenestrations will be in aluminium.

3.6 As part of the proposed development, an alteration to the existing vehicular/pedestrian access to the application site is proposed. It is proposed to widen this access, by approximately 2.5m (to a total width of 5.0m). This will involve the partial removal of an existing boundary retaining wall and grass verge adjoining the highway, and the provision of a hardstanding in a mixture of tarmacadam and block paving.

212

Figure 3 – Proposed Site Block Plan

Figure 4: Proposed Floor Plans & Elevations

213

b) Documents submitted

i. Plans

3.6 The application has been accompanied by the following plans:

Drawing No. 17/032.1 (Site and Location Plan) (now superseded); Drawing No. 17/032.1 Rev A (Site and Location Plan); Drawing No. 17/032.3 (Plans and Elevations – Existing); and Drawing No. 17/032.4 (Planning Proposals).

ii. Documents

3.7 The application has been accompanied by the following documentation:

Application Form.

c) Pre-application Engagement

3.8 Prior to submitting the planning application the proposed development was not subject to a pre-application enquiry.

4. Consultations and Representations

4.1 Consultation with technical consultees and the local community were carried out on the application.

4.2 A Site Notice was displayed outside the application site on the opposite side of the highway on Broadgate/Main Street on 26th July 2017, and a Press Notice was published in the Harborough Mail on 3rd August 2017.

4.3 A summary of the technical consultee responses received is set out below. If you wish to view the comments in full, please go to: www.harborough.gov.uk/planning.

a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees

Great Easton Parish Council 4.4 No representation received.

Leicestershire County Council Highways 4.5 No comments.

b) Local Community

4.6 No letters of representation have been received in connection with this application.

5. Planning Policy Considerations

214

a) Development Plan

5.4 The current Local Development Plan consists of the Local Development Framework Harborough District Core Strategy 2006-2028 (adopted November 2011) and “saved policies” of the Harborough District Local Plan (adopted 2001).

Harborough District Core Strategy

5.4 The following policies are considered to be relevant to this application:

 Policy CS1: Spatial Strategy;  Policy CS11: Promoting Design and Built Heritage; and  Policy CS17: Countryside, Rural Centres and Rural Villages.

Harborough District Local Plan (“saved policies”)

5.5 Of the limited policies which remain extant, the following policies are considered to be relevant to this application:

 Policy HS/8: Limits to Development.

b) Material Planning Considerations

5.6 Material Planning Considerations relevant to this application are:

 The National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework/NPPF);  National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG); and  Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 5.

c) Other Relevant Information

o Reason for Committee Decision

5.7 This application is to be determined by Planning Committee as one of the Applicants is an employee of Harborough District Council.

6. Assessment

a) Principle of Development

6.1 Subject to the proposal complying with the relevant planning policies and guidance, the principle of extending a residential dwellinghouse is considered to be acceptable.

b) Technical Considerations

1. Design & Impact on Designated Heritage Assets

6.2 With regard to matters of design, the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that “good design

215

is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.”

6.3 Paragraph 58 of the NPPF advises that planning decisions should aim to ensure that developments function well and add to the overall quality of the area, respond to local character and history and reflect the identify of local surroundings and materials and are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping. Paragraph 60 continues to state that planning decisions should “seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness”. Paragraph 61 of the NPPF states “visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are very important factors.”

6.4 With regard to determining applications, paragraph 63 of the NPPF states “great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which raise the standard of design more generally in the area”. Paragraph 64 continues to state “permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.”

6.5 With regard to heritage assets, and determining planning applications, Paragraph 131 of the NPPF states “… local planning authorities should take account of:

 the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets …  the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic viability; and  the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.”

6.6 Paragraph 132 of the NPPF continues to state “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.”

6.7 Paragraph 133 of the NPPF states “Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:

6.8 Paragraph 134 of the NPPF continues to state “Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.”

6.9 Paragraph 137 of the NPPF states “Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas … and within the

216

setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably.”

6.11 With regard to heritage assets, this policy states “heritage assets within the District, and their setting, will be protected, conserved and enhanced, ensuring that residents and visitors can appreciate and enjoy them through: … iii) ensuring development in existing Conservation Areas is consistent with the special character as describe in the Statement or Appraisal for that Area, …”

6.12 “Saved” Policy HS/8 (Limits to Development) of the Harborough District Local Plan requires the design and layout of development proposals to be in keeping with the scale, form, character and surroundings of the settlement in which it is to be sited within.

6.13 It is considered that the scale and design of the extensions/alterations proposed would be such that they would appear subservient to, and in keeping with the character and appearance of the host dwelling. Notwithstanding this, the proposed extensions are to be located either towards the rear at the side, or to the rear of the existing dwelling. As such, it is considered that they will not appear overly prominent in context of the public views of the streetscene along Broadgate in which case it is considered that the proposed development would not result in any adverse harm to the visual amenity to the streetscene in this location, or the character and appearance of the local area, including the setting of the Great Easton Conservation Area. Furthermore, it is considered that whilst the proposal would not necessarily enhance or better reveal the significance of the Conservation Area, it would nevertheless make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

6.14 In view of the above, it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with the relevant provisions of Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy, Policy HS/8 of the Harborough District Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 5: Extensions to Dwellings. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the NPPF.

2. Residential Amenity

6.15 Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework “seeks to secure a high quality design and good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings”.

6.16 Policy CS11 (Promoting Design and Built Heritage) of the Harborough District Core Strategy requires proposals for development to “ensure that the amenities of existing and future neighbouring occupiers are safeguarded.”

217

6.17 “Saved” Policy HS/8 (Limits to Development) of the Harborough District Local Plan states “the District Council will grant planning permission … where … the development does not adversely affect the amenities of residents in the area.”

6.18 The neighbouring property which would potentially be most affected by the proposal is No. 6 Broadgate.

6.19 No. 6 Broadgate is a dormer bungalow. It has previously been extended on a number of occasions, including a rear single-storey extension adjacent to the north-eastern boundary (that shared with the application site) and extensions to an existing rear elevation dormer window. Due to the topography of Broadgate, the ground level of the application site is approximately 0.6m above the ground level to this neighbouring property. The south-western boundary of the application site comprises an approximate 0.6m high concrete retaining wall with a close-boarded fence of approximately 1.2m in height sat on top of the wall.

Figure 5 – Relationship between Neighbouring Property (No. 6 Broadgate - LHS) and No. 4 Broadgate (RHS)

218

Figure 6 – Neighbouring Property’s (No. 6 Broadgate) Rear Extension

6.20 With regard to the erection of a single-storey side extension to the host dwelling, the proposed extension would be sited parallel to the neighbouring property’s existing single-storey rear extension, approximately 1.5m from the side elevation of the neighbour’s extension, and set in approximately 0.25m from the existing boundary to the application site, orientated to the north-east of the neighbouring property. The side (north-eastern) elevation to the neighbour’s extension is a blank un-fenestrated façade, albeit a Velux roof light is located to the north-eastern roof slope of the extension. By virtue of the topography of the two sites, the proposed extension would sit higher than the neighbouring property’s extension, approximately 0.6m difference in the eaves height and approximately 1.5m in the ridge height.

6.21 To assess whether or not the proposal will be overbearing to the neighbouring property, based on the guidance contained in SPG Note 5, a 45 degree line is drawn from the centre of the closest rear elevation habitable room window. Literally, the proposed extension in its entirety would not cross this 45 degree line. Accordingly, it is suggested that this proposal would not be overbearing upon the rear elevation of the neighbouring property, and in turn would not result in any adverse impact upon the neighbouring property’s access to natural day or sun light. Notwithstanding this, whilst the proposed extension would be sited parallel to the neighbouring property’s extension and at a higher position, in view of the orientation of the 2 no. properties, the level of separation proposed and angle of the roof light to the neighbouring property’s extension, it is not considered that the proposed extension would result in any adverse impact upon the neighbouring property’s access to natural day or sun light.

6.22 With regard to the erection of a single-storey rear extension to the host dwelling, the proposed extension would be sited approximately 2.4m from the south-western boundary of the application site, and approximately 4.0m from the side (north- eastern) building line of the neighbouring property. It would be orientated to the north-east of the neighbouring property.

6.23 Again, to assess whether or not the proposal will be overbearing to the neighbouring property, based on the guidance contained in SPG Note 5, a 45 degree line is drawn from the centre of the closest rear elevation habitable room window. Literally, the

219

proposed extension in its entirety would not cross this 45 degree line. Accordingly, it is suggested that this proposal would not be overbearing upon the rear elevation of the neighbouring property, and in turn would not result in any adverse impact upon the neighbouring property’s access to natural day or sun light.

6.24 In respect to the potential for the loss of privacy to the occupants of the neighbouring property, the opportunity to overlook the neighbouring property’s rear private amenity spaces would not be significantly greater than the opportunities currently afforded from the ground floor windows to the rear elevation of the existing dwelling. Accordingly, the existing situation would not be exacerbated by virtue of the proposed development. There are no concerns in respect to the potential to overlook the neighbouring dwelling.

6.25 Notwithstanding the above, by reason of the nature of that proposed and its siting/orientation in context of No. 53 Main Street and No. 2 Holt View, it is suggested that the proposed development will not result in any demonstrable harm upon the occupants of these neighbouring properties in respect to outlook, loss of light and loss of privacy.

Figure 7 – View Towards No. 53 Main Street

220

Figure 8 – View Towards No. 2 Holt View

6.26 In view of the above, it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with the relevant provisions of Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy, Policy HS/8 of the Harborough District Local Plan and SPG Note 5: Extensions to Dwellings. Furthermore, the proposal would comply with paragraph 17 of the NPPF.

3. Highways

6.27 One additional bedroom is proposed as part of the proposed development. It is considered that the existing driveway to the frontage of the dwelling, which is to retained as existing, albeit widened to include the widening of the existing site access, would provide ample off-street vehicular parking to accommodate 2 no. vehicles in accordance with the car parking standards set out within Leicestershire County Council Highways’ ‘The 6Cs Design Guide’.

6.28 The Local Highway Authority were consulted on this application. The consultation response received outlines that the Highway Authority has no comments to make in connection with the proposed development.

6.29 In light of the non-objection consultation response received from the Local Highways Authority, it is suggested that the proposed development will not give rise to any material harm in respect to matters of highway safety. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with the relevant provisions of Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy, and Leicestershire County Council Highways’ ‘The 6Cs Design Guide’.

221

c) Sustainable Development

6.30 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) identifies three dimensions to sustainable development – economic, social and environmental. Taking each of these in turn the following conclusions can be reached.

o Economic Provides economic development in the building of an extension.

o Social Allows the Applicant to extend their home whilst ensuring the proposal does not harm the character and appearance of the local area.

o Environmental The proposal is in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding local area, and does not harm the street scape to Broadgate or the special character of the Great Easton Conservation Area.

7. Conclusion/The Planning Balance

7.1 In summary, it is considered that the proposed development, by virtue of their siting, design, appearance, scale and massing, would not result in any adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the local area, including the streetscene to Broadgate, nor the Great Easton Conservation Area. Furthermore, the proposal would not result in any adverse impact in respect to matters of highway safety or residential amenity. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with Policies CS1, CS11 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy, Policy HS/8 of the Harborough District Local Plan, SPG Note 5 and the relevant sections of the NPPF.

8. Planning Conditions & Informatives

8.1 If Members are minded to approve the application a list of suggested Conditions and Informatives is attached to Appendix A.

222

Appendix A: Conditions and Informatives

Conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Drawing No. 17/032.1 Rev A (Site and Location Plan); Drawing No. 17/032.3 (Plans and Elevations – Existing); and Drawing No. 17/032.4 (Planning Proposals).

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

3. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with those specified within the Application Form and on the approved plans, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area and to accord with the Harborough District Council Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Informatives:

2. If the permitted plans involve the carrying out of building work along or close to the boundary, you are advised that under the Party Wall Act 1996 you have a duty to give notice to the adjoining owner of your intentions before commencing this work.

223

Planning Committee Report Applicant: Mr and Mrs Taylor

Application Ref: 17/01151/FUL

Location: The Croft, Poultney Lane, Kimcote, Leics

Proposal: Erection of a detached dwelling

Application Validated: 07/07/2017

Target Date: 01/09/2017 – Extension of time agreed

Consultation Expiry Date: 02/08/2017

Site Visit Date: 26/08/2017

Case Officer: Emma Baumber

Recommendation

Planning Permission is REFUSED:

- Kimcote lacks a number of key services and it is therefore likely that the occupiers of the dwelling would be highly or solely reliant upon the private motor vehicles to access key services therefore having a negative environmental impact and being contrary to the aims and objectives of the Framework. The positive social and economic impacts are considered to be negligible and the modest contribution the proposal makes to the Council’s current lack of 5 year supply is not considered to outweigh the significant and demonstrable negative environmental impact, including that caused by its design as stated below. Therefore by virtue of its location, the proposal is therefore not sustainable development and is contrary to CS9 a), CS17 and paragraphs 14, 17, and chapter 4 of the Framework.

- By virtue of its siting, the proposal will appear out of keeping with the form and character of the village and will detrimentally affect the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal thus fails CS11 c) v).

1. Site & Surroundings 1.1 The site is within the existing rear garden of The Croft, Poultney Lane Kimcote (Fig.1). The Croft is a large, detached two storey dwelling which is sited to the south of the village, at the edge of the built form of Kimcote.

224

Figure 1: Site Location

1.2 The Croft is set back from Poultney Lane with a modest front garden and large garden to the rear (fig.2). The properties access currently runs along the side of the property (northern boundary); where it reaches a parking area and detached garage midway within the plot.

225

Figure 2: Front elevation of The Croft from Poultney Lane 1.3 The rear garden of The Croft is laid to lawn with substantial hedging and vegetation to each boundary. There are also a number of semi-mature trees within the garden. The site is bounded by fields to the west and south with residential properties to the north and east.

1.4 There is no distinct architectural vernacular within the immediate street scene; the properties are individually designed and are of mixed ages, design and building material, with red-brick being predominant. Development along Poultney Lane is linear in form especially to the west of Poultney lane where although the properties are set back from the road there is a street frontage throughout. These properties are also characterised by their large gardens to the rear.

1.5 Kimcote is not identified within the development plan as a Select Rural Village and has no Limits to Development (saved Local Plan policy HS/8). The site is within the Kimcote Conservation Area.

2. Site History

2.1 None relevant

3. The Application Submission

a) Summary of Proposals

3.1 The proposal seeks planning approval for the erection of a detached dwelling and alterations to the existing access outlined below: - Erection of a three bed, dormer bungalow with a ridge height of 8.4m - Extension to existing driveway - Subdivision of plot to create separate residential curtilage for main dwelling

226

b) Documents submitted

i. Plans

3.2 The application has been accompanied by the following plans – - Site Location - Proposed Layout - Proposed floorplans and elevations

ii. Supporting Statements

3.3 The application has been accompanied by the following supporting documentation- - Design and Access Statement

c) Amended Plans and/or Additional Supporting Statements/Documents 3.4 No amendments received

d) Pre-application Engagement

3.5 No formal pre-application was carried out.

4. Consultations and Representations

4.1 Consultations with technical consultees and the local community were carried out for the application. This occurred on 12th July 2017 and included a site notice put up on the 19th July 2017 and a notice in the Harborough Mail on the 20th July 2017. This initial consultation period expired on 10th August 2017.

4.2 Firstly, a summary of the technical consultee responses received is set out below. If you wish to view the comments in full, please go to: www.harborough.gov.uk/planning.

a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees

4.3 Kimcote and Walton parish Supports the proposal

4.4 Environment Team No Comment

4.5 LCC Highways The Local Highway Authority refers the Local Planning Authority to current standing advice provided by the Local Highway Authority dated September 2011.

Following clarification the following summary was received: - The geometry turning right out of the access for the existing dwelling as proposed is tight, and given the total widths and setback of the shared area of the access drive proposed it would be considered adequate at best for a vehicle turning south. However consideration to the likely trips being predominantly to the north is a factor.

- There is limited visibility to the south, however given the nature of Poultney Lane speeds are unlikely to be high. Given this in view of the minor improvements

227

proposed, and the level of associated trips with such a small scale of development using an existing access, it may be difficult to maintain this as a reason for refusal in highway terms. However any improvement to access visibility would be considered a highway gain should you wish to pursue a removal/re-alignment of the boundary treatment for a greater distance south of the access.

- As a minimum the shared area of drive should be obligated as shown to ensure the provision of a minimum access width of 5.25 metres for a 5 metre setback from the highway boundary

4.6 LCC Ecology No objections- the land is currently garden and no ecology surveys are needed

b) Local Community

4.7 17 supporting comments received, from 16 households a summary is provided below:

 The applicants are active members of the village community, who wish to stay within the village to support their family  The development will fit in nicely to the village envelope  One dwelling will not cause adverse vehicle movements on Poultney Lane  The development will not detract from the rural nature of the village  The development will not impact on the neighbouring property  As the dwelling is set back it will not be visible

4.8 No Objection comments have been received.

5. Planning Policy Considerations

5.1 Please see above for planning policy considerations that apply to all agenda items.

a) Development Plan

o Harborough District Core Strategy (Adopted November 2011)

5.2 Relevant policies to this application are CS2, CS11 and CS17. These are detailed in the policy section at the start of the agenda.

b) Material Planning Considerations

o The National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) 5.3 Paragraphs 14 (presumption in favour of sustainable development); 17 (core planning principles); 58, 60, 61 and 63 (requiring good design); and chapter 12 (conserving and enhancing the historic environment) are particularly relevant.

o New Local Plan

o The National Planning Policy Guidance

o Sections 66 and 72 of The Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

228

o Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 8- ne Uses for Old Buildings A Guide to their Conversion

c) Other Relevant Information

o Reason for Committee Decision

5.4 This application is to be determined by Planning Committee due to the level of representation received and the application has also been called-in by Councillor Hall.

6. Assessment

a) Principle of Development 6.1 Paragraph 49 of the Framework states that where local planning authorities cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites, policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date. As the Council cannot currently demonstrate a robust five year supply, the figures within CS2 are considered out of date. CS2 requires new dwellings to be provided in the rural centres and Selected Rural Villages (SRV).

6.2 CS17 seeks to direct new housing and other development towards the larger settlements and villages. Villages with at least two key services are designated SRV. All development will be “on a scale which reflects the size and character of the village concerned [and] the level of service provision”. Kimcote is not designated as an SRV. Although CS17 a) does allow for “very limited small scale infill development” within settlements which have Limits to Development (HS/8) Kimcote has no identified Limits within HS/8; as such is deemed as within the countryside wherein development will be “strictly controlled”. Furthermore the Council acknowledge that this policy is out of date and should be given moderate weight.

6.3 Paragraph 14 of the Framework indicates that where relevant policies are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless “any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or where specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”. Paragraph 7 establishes the three dimensions to sustainable development; economic, social and environmental.

6.4 Paragraph 55 of the Framework indicates that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances. The proposed dwelling would be within the existing garden of ‘The Croft’ which dwellings to the north and east as such is not itself is not remote from the village. In this sense, the site is not isolated in terms of its relationship to nearby development.

6.5 Kimcote has none of the key services outlined within the Core Strategy identified as being critical to sustainable settlements (food shop, public house, primary school, library or GP surgery). Therefore future occupiers would need to travel outside of Kimcote to access these key services. There is a public house at Walton (1 mile) where a footpath links the two villages, walking times are estimated at 20 minutes. Other services (primary school, pubs and a shop) are located in Gilmorton (1.5

229

miles), there is no footpath between the two villages and walking times are estimated at 30 minutes. There are also limited employment opportunities within Kimcote that could be reached by foot or bicycle. While occupiers of the proposed dwelling may be able to work from home, that the future occupiers of the proposed house would necessarily gain employment locally or would work from home cannot be assumed or assured. This is particularly evident given the limited range of employers within Kimcote, it is likely that wider employment opportunities are likely to be located further afield.

6.6 Overall, the site would be remote from main services and infrastructure such as shops, community facilities, schools and a wider range of employment opportunities. The nearest key services are not within a close proximity and are not reasonably expected to be reached on foot or bicycle on a daily basis; due to the distances outlined and lack of a suitable footpath to Gilmorton. There is one local bus service that runs twice a day to Lutterworth; however the times of the bus would be impractical for a full time commuter to Lutterworth, arriving in Lutterworth at 10:12am with the last return bus leaving Lutterworth at 15:10pm. In practical terms, the above factors would deter the future occupiers of the dwelling from taking up these more sustainable transport modes and they would have few alternatives to the use of a private vehicle to meet their day to day requirements.

6.7 The Design and Access statement refers to the ability for the future occupiers to use delivery services which would help reduce car journeys. It is also acknowledged that the car dependency of the future occupiers would be no higher than that of the existing nearby residents, and the proposal would not be a significant traffic generator. However, in this context, the proposal would not minimise the need to travel or reduce reliance on a car. As such the proposal would conflict with CS5(a) which seeks to locate development in areas well served by local services to reduce the need to travel, where people can gain convenient access to public transport services for longer journeys, and where local journeys may be undertaken on foot or by bicycle. It would also be contrary to policy CS11 (c) (viii) which requires development to be well planned and to where appropriate, encourage travel by a variety of modes of transport. It would also be contrary to the aim of Framework to actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling and focus significant development in locations which are, or can be made sustainable.

6.8 In terms of the economic dimension of sustainable development, the proposal may bring some short term benefits through construction work and ongoing maintenance with on going benefits in terms of spending of additional residents. However since the site is remote from employment, leisure and retail facilities the future occupiers would need to travel further afield for these basic amenities. This would outweigh some of the benefits to the local economy, and curtail the schemes economic role.

6.9 With regard to the social dimension of sustainability, the proposal would boost housing land supply and widen the choice of quality homes. It is appreciated that the applicants intend to reside in the proposed dwelling themselves, however future occupiers of ‘The Croft’ and the proposed dwelling must also be considered. While the occupiers of the house would be additional inhabitants of the village, considering the very limited range of services and employment possibilities, future residents would be isolated from local facilities and services limiting the proposals benefit in terms of the social role of sustainable development. Its contribution to enhancing or maintaining the vitality of the rural community (as required by paragraph 55 of the Framework) would not be significant.

230

6.10 The environmental role of sustainability will be explored in more detail in section 6.13. Paragraphs 93 and 95 of the Framework set out that planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and that local planning authorities should plan for new development in locations and ways which reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In theory it would be possible to walk or use a bicycle to travel for access to services and facilities in Walton and Gilmorton, however this would involve travelling along roads with a national speed limit with no street lighting. This would discourage this mode of transport and is also very unlikely after dark or during inclement weather. Shopping trips in particular would be particularly difficult because of the likely amount of groceries that would need to be transported. Since the residents would therefore be reliant on private car journeys for most services and amenities, the proposal would not foster sustainable modes of travel and therefore would not help to significantly minimise pollution or mitigate and adapt to climate change. Accordingly the proposal would not meet the environmental dimension of sustainable development.

6.11 The Councils view with regards to the sustainability have been successfully withstood at appeal, most recently for a scheme for housing within Ashby Parva (February 2017) where the Inspectorate found that due to the lack of services and the proposal would result in harm by way of its unsustainable location (Reference: 15/02004/OUT). Similarly in February 2016 an appeal was dismissed in Bruntingthorpe for a single dwelling, while the inspectorate felt the house was well related to existing dwellings, as the village has limited services the proposal was deemed unsustainable (Reference: 15/01579/FUL). Most significantly Kimcote was also deemed unsustainable in an appeal upheld for a single dwelling adjacent to Kimcote Hall due to the lack of services available within the village in June 2016 (Reference: 15/01487/FUL).

b) Housing Requirement and Housing Land Supply 6.12 The Council presently does not have a 5 year Housing Land Supply. The proposal would contribute one dwelling to current supply.

c) Technical Considerations

1. Design and Visual Amenity 6.13 The proposed dwelling is a dormer bungalow; the lower eaves height and traditional nature of the dwelling is considered acceptable. Considering that there is no distinct vernacular in the surrounding street-scene the design of the dwelling itself will not appear out of keeping. The dwelling is proposed to be constructed from red brick, with timber windows and a slate roof; these materials are in keeping with the existing dwelling and those surrounding the site.

6.14 The boundary treatment at the site is substantial; therefore views from the surrounding countryside will be minimal (fig.3). Furthermore as the dwelling is to be set back from Poultney Lane, only limited glimpses will be seen from the public realm (fig.4).

231

Figure 3: Application site (facing west)

Figure 4: Existing access looking towards the application site

6.15 Notwithstanding the limited visibility of the dwelling, Kimcote is a T-shaped settlement with development following the two roads Walton Road and Poultney Lane. While the houses along Poultney Lane are set back from the road, there is still a strong sense of street frontage and development along Poultney Lane is characteristically linear (fig.5). There are no other examples of tandem development like that proposed along Poultney Lane; the use of tandem development and lack of street frontage is considered to be out of keeping with the development pattern of Kimcote and therefore harmful to the character of the settlement.

232

Figure 5: Site location showing linear form of development on Poultney lane

2. Heritage 6.16 The site is within Kimcote’s Conservation Area which is characterised by the T- shaped settlement form with the principle features being identified on this T-junction. Considering the limited visibility of the dwelling and the use of traditional materials the proposal is not considered to cause harm to the special character of the Conservation Area.

3. Residential Amenity 6.17 Core Principle 4 of the Framework seeks to ensure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupiers of land and buildings, this principle is further reflected in CS Policy 11. In order to objectively assess the impact of the proposed development upon existing residential amenity, the Council has adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 5. This guidance states that there are three main ways in which development can affect existing residential amenity: o Loss of light (overshadowing) o Loss of privacy (overlooking) o Sense of over-dominance or an overbearing structure

6.18 The proposal is over 21m from the host dwelling ‘The Croft’, therefore meets the separation distances outlined within SPG5 for window-window distances. The separation distance will also mitigate against a loss of light and sense of over- dominance to the host dwelling. While this dwelling will have a reduced garden area; considering the size of the plot this and retained garden area the scheme will not lead to a detrimental loss of open space around the dwelling.

233

6.19 The only other adjacent property is ‘Old Orchard House’ which is sited to the north- east of the proposed dwelling. As earlier stated there is a large hedge along this shared boundary (fig.6); only ground floor windows are proposed to face the side boundary as such the hedge will limit views into the neighbouring garden. While the separation distance between the proposed dwelling and neighbouring property is over 21m. As above the separation distance will mitigate overlooking, overshadowing and a sense of over-dominance and therefore the proposal is not considered to harm the amenity of any adjoining residential property.

Figure 6: Application site looking north-east towards Old Orchard House.

4. Highways 6.20 LCC Highways have not objected to the proposal and have referred the LPA to standing advice. Alterations to the proposed access are including to create a shared entry point for both dwellings but a new driveway beyond this for the host dwelling.

6.21 The proposed geometry turning right out of the proposed access is tight and given the limited set back of the driveway to serve the host dwelling it is considered adequate at best for a vehicle turning south. However likely trips to the south of Poultney Lane are minimal with the trips to the north being a predominant factor. At present there is a front boundary wall which limits visibility to the south; the first 2m of the existing wall are proposed to be reduced to a height of 600mm above ground level. Notwithstanding this visibility to the south will be limited, however given the nature of Poultney Lane speeds are unlikely to be high and visibility to the north is considered to be adequate. Given the minor improvements proposed, and the levels of associated trips, with such a small scale of development using an existing access the limited visibility is not deemed sufficient to warrant refusal. Furthermore sufficient parking space is identified on the layout plan for a dwelling of this size. It would appear that the highway impact from the proposal would not be severe and that the proposal accords with Highways Standing Advice and CS5.

7. The Planning Balance / Conclusion 7.1 In conclusion, the proposal would contribute to the Councils housing land supply, however along with the economic and social gains considered above, these benefits are limited by its small scale and the schemes reliance on private cars to access

234

main services. Its contribution in building a strong and competitive economy or supporting a strong and, vibrant and healthy community are therefore minimal. Furthermore, for the reasons given above the scheme would rely unduly on private car journeys and would fail to encourage sustainable forms of transport, when considering the scheme as a whole environmental gains would not be realised.

7.2 The proposals to create a tandem style development; in contrast to the surrounding linear form of development will also appear out of keeping with the form and character of the village and will detrimentally affect the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

7.3 Therefore by virtue of its location, the proposal is not a sustainable form of development and is contrary to CS5 (a), CS9a), CS11 (c) (viii) and CS17 and paragraphs 14, 17 and chapter 4 of The Framework. Furthermore, due to dwellings siting it is deemed to be out of keeping with the form and character of the settlement and the proposal does not comply with CS11 (c) (iii).

235

Applicant: Harborough District Council

Application Ref: 17/01193/FUL

Location: Harborough Innovation Centre, Wellington Way, Airfield Business Park, Market Harborough, LE16 7WB

Proposal: Erection of a single storey lobby extension

Application Validated: 13.07.2017

8 Week Target Date: 07.09.2017 (Extension of time agreed)

Consultation Expiry Date: 30.08.2017

Site Visit Dates: 09.08.2017

Case Officer: Anisa Aboud

Recommendation

Planning Permission is APPROVED, for the reasons set out in the report and subject to the appended Planning Conditions (Appendix A).

The development hereby approved, by virtue of its design, size and positioning, would not adversely affect the amenity of neither local residents/businesses nor result in a sub- standard level of off street parking. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11 and no other material considerations indicate that the policies of the development plan should not prevail, furthermore the decision has been reached taking into account 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

1. Site & Surroundings

1.1 The site lies immediately to the south of previously constructed employment buildings that also lie on Airfield Business Park, and this development is accessed off Leicester Road (B6047).

1.2 Leicester Road (B6047) runs alongside the eastern site boundary and the site lies adjacent to the SUE, which is situated immediately to the west and south-west. There is an existing Travellers site located immediately to the south of the site (Green Acres Park).

236

Figure 1 – Site Location Plan

237

Figure 2 – Aerial Photograph of Site Location 1:500

238

Figure 3 – Proposed Site Plan

2. Site History

2.1 Erection of a Business Park for B1, B2 and B8 employment uses (all matters reserved) – Approved 19th February 2007.

2.2 Subsequent reserved matters approvals for parts of the site, including the Harborough Innovation Centre and the starter units to the north of the site.

2.3 11/00112/OUT – Erection of housing and associated employment, community, retail and open space (Outline) - on adjoining land to SW

2.4 15/01609/OUT permitted outline consent for 7 Ha of employment land subject to conditions and S106.

3. The Application Submission

a) Summary of Proposals

3.1 The application seeks planning permission to construct a single storey lobby extension on the front elevation of the Harborough Innovation Centre. The proposal will measure approx. 3.3m X 4.5m with an eaves height of approx. 2.5m and ridge height of approx. 2.5m.

239 b) Plans and Documents for Assessment

i Plans

3.2 The application seeks assessment of the following plans:

1. Site and Location Plan drawing number RCL 500/510 P0112/001 2. Proposed ground floor Layout drawing number RCL 1260 110 P01 3. Existing Elevations drawing number RCL 1260200 P01 4. Proposed Elevations drawing number RCL 1260 210 P01 5. Proposed Sections A-A/ B-B/ C-C drawing number RCL 1260 310 P01

ii Supporting Statements

3.3 N/A

4. Consultations and Representations

4.1 Consultations with technical consultees and the local community have been carried out on the application.

4.2 A summary of the technical consultee responses and local representations received are set out below. If you wish to view the comments in full, please go to: www.harborough.gov.uk/planning

a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees

4.3 Market Harborough Civic Society- no comment (31/07/17)

4.4 National grid – National Grid has No Objection to the above proposal which is in close proximity to a High-Pressure Gas Pipeline. (8/8/17)

4.5 LCC Highways – The Local highway Authority has no comment to make (3/8/17)

b) Local Community

4. None received

5. Planning Policy Considerations

5.1 Please see above for planning policy considerations that apply to all agenda items.

a) Development Plan

Harborough District Core Strategy (Adopted November 2011)

5.2 Relevant policies to this application are CS11 and CS5. These are detailed in the policy section at the start of the agenda.

b) Material Planning Considerations

o The National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’)

240

5.3 Paragraphs 14 (presumption in favour of sustainable development); 17 (core planning principles); 58, 60, 61 and 63 (requiring good design) and 187 (Decision Taking).

o Supplementary Planning Guidance (2003)

5.4 Relevant Policies:

CS1 Spatial Strategy for Harborough CS5 Providing Sustainable Transport CS6 Improving Town Centres and Retailing CS7 Enabling Employment and Business Development CS8 Protecting and Enhancing Green Infrastructure CS9 Addressing Climate Change CS10 Addressing Flood Risk CS11 Promoting Design and Built Heritage CS12 Delivering Development and Supporting Infrastructure CS13 Market Harborough CS17 Countryside, Rural Centres and Rural Villages

o New Local Plan

o The National Planning Policy Guidance

c) Other Relevant Information

5.5 This application is to be determined by Planning Committee due to the applicant being Harborough District Council.

6. Assessment

a) Design and Visual amenity

6.1 The proposed works involve a single storey front lobby extension of modest proportions.

241

(Source: Google Streetview 2017)

Figure 3: Front Elevation (North) Streetscene

6.2 Policy CS11 states that the highest standards of design will be sought. Development should respect its context and respond to the unique characteristics of the site and wider environment. Development should be of an appropriate scale, density and design.

6.3 The proposed front lobby extension will be discreetly positioned and does not appear out of keeping with building and wider context of the site as a purpose built commercial centre.

Figure 4: Front Elevation (South West) Streetscene

Figure 5: Side Elevation (South East) Streetscene

242

Figure 6: Proposed ground floorplan

6.4 The materials proposed are: Roof: Aluminium standing seam roof sheets to match existing roof Walls: glazed screen cladding with timber boarding and automatic doors to match existing Windows: Powder coated double glazed units to match existing

6.5 The extension would be built in materials to match the existing and is of a design that is sympathetic to the style of the building.

6.6 As a result the proposal does not adversely affect the visual amenities of the street scene and reflects the context in which it is taking place. The application is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy 11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

Highways 6.10 The proposal does not affect parking and no alterations to access are proposed therefore the proposal is not considered to give rise to an unsafe highways situation and this complies with CS5.

Residential Amenity

243

6.11 Core Principle 4 of the framework seeks to ensure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupiers of land and buildings, this principle is also reflected in Policy CS 11

6.12 There is an existing Travellers site located south of the application site. However, given the modest proportions of the proposal and the separation distances (approx. 265m away), it is considered that.

6.13 Residential development is also proposed in the Market Harborough Strategic Development Area that lies to the west of the site, although no detailed planning applications for this land have yet to be submitted. It is considered that due to the potential separation distances and the small scale of the proposal, no adverse impact is envisaged.

6.14 The closest business unit is approx. 50-80m away and it is not considered that the single storey front extension will cause any harm to their amenity.

6.22 The application therefore considered to comply with Policy CS11 and SPG note 5.

7. The Planning Balance / Conclusion

7.1 The proposed extension will not be highly visible from the streetscene of Leicester Road and is designed to be subordinate. The extension is not considered to cause a sense of over-dominance or loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Policy CS5 and CS11 of the Harborough District Council Core Strategy and no other material considerations indicate that the policies of the development plan should not prevail, furthermore the decision has been reached taking into account 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

244

Appendix A: Conditions:

1 Full Planning Permission- commencement The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON: To accord with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 Permitted Plans This consent relates to the application as amended by revised plan no. proposed site plan drawing number drawing number B12/035 A, Proposed Floor Plans drawing number B12/031 B and Proposed Elevations drawing number B12/051 B attached to and forming part of this consent.

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt.

3 Materials Match Existing The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match, in material, colour and texture, to those used in the existing building.

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area and to accord with the Harborough District Council Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Informatives

Building Regulations You are advised that this proposal may require separate consent under the Building Regulations and that no works should be undertaken until all necessary consents have been obtained. Advice on the requirements of the Building Regulations can be obtained from the Building Control Section, Harborough District Council (Tel. Market Harborough 821090). As such please be aware that complying with building regulations does not mean that the planning conditions attached to this permission have been discharged and vice versa.

245