Blaby District Council Planning Committee Date of Meeting 14 September 2017 Title of Report Applications for Determination Repor

Blaby District Council Planning Committee

Date of Meeting 14 September 2017 Title of Report Applications for Determination Report Author Development Services Manager

1. What is this report about?

1.1 To determine planning applications as listed in paragraph 3.2 below and detailed in the attached report.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the recommendations listed within paragraph 3.2 below and detailed in the attached report be approved.

3. Matters to consider

3.1 To avoid unnecessary delay in the processing of planning applications, the recommendations included in this list must often be prepared in advance of the closing date for the receipt of representations. This list was prepared on 04 September 2017 and information of representations received will be updated at your meeting. This updating will also cover any other information which may come to hand in the intervening period. Closing dates are given where they fall on or after the day of preparation of the list.

3.2 Application No. Page Address Recommendation No.

17/0431/FUL 12 Lubbesthorpe Strategic APPROVE Employment Site Land to the north of Leicester Lane Enderby

17/0596/FUL 35 Land adj 7 Winston APPROVE Avenue Croft

17/0721/FUL 45 Rose Paddock REFUSE Hinckley Road Leicester Forest West

17/0722/VAR 55 Rose Paddock REFUSE Hinckley Road Leicester Forest West

17/0747/FUL 65 Land at Croft Road APPROVE Cosby

17/0906/FUL 84 Land adj Travelodge APPROVE Hinckley Road Leicester Forest East

17/1001/OUT 92 3 Gullet Lane REFUSE Kirby Muxloe

17/1018/FUL 100 Blueberry Foods APPROVE Oak Spinney Park Kirby Muxloe

17/1047/FUL 107 Land rear of 3 Liberty REFUSE Road & 65 & 65A Sports Road Glenfield

17/1054/OUT 110 51 Peatling Road REFUSE Countesthorpe

3.3 Appropriate Consultations

Details of organisations / persons consulted in relation to the applications are included in the reports for each individual application. Members will be aware that full copies of correspondence received are available to view on the respective planning file and through the planning portal https://w3.blaby.gov.uk/online-applications/

3.4 Resource Implications

There are no specific financial implications arising from the contents of this report.

4. Other options considered

These are included where appropriate as part of the reports relating to each individual application.

5. Background paper(s)

Background papers are contained in files held in the Planning Division for each application being considered and are available for public inspection.

6. Report author’s contact details Kristy Ingles Development Services Manager [email protected] 0116 272 7565

17/0431/FUL Registered Date Goodman Logistics Leicester 25 April 2017 (GP) LLP

Erection of two buildings for B2/B8 employment use with ancillary integral B1(a) office accommodation and associated parking, landscaping, drainage and infrastructure

Lubbesthorpe Strategic Employment Site, Land To The North Of Leicester Lane, Enderby

Report Author: Lloyd Bird, Major Schemes Officer

Contact Details: Council Offices. Tel: 0116 272 7726

RECOMMENDATION: THAT APPLICATION 17/0431/FUL BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT ENTERING INTO A SECTION 106 AGREEMENT TO SECURE THE FOLLOWING CONTRIBUTIONS:

1. The offer in writing for the installation of sound insulation at No’s. 1 & 2 Warren Farm Cottages. 2. If the above offer is accepted, the installation of sound insulation at No’s. 1 & 2 Warren Farm Cottages. 3. The delivery of an Economy Employment and Training Strategy consistent with the principles of the version secured under the s.106 agreement attached to outline planning permission 11/0100/1/OX. 4. The delivery of an Employment Travel Plan. 5. The delivery of an Employment Land Open Space Strategy.

And subject to the imposition of the following conditions:

1. Statutory 3 year condition 2. Approved plans 3. Use of development limited to B2, B8 and ancillary B1 uses 4. No single office use shall exceed 1000 square metres in net floor area 5. Materials as specified on approved plans 6. Surface Water Drainage Scheme to be submitted and agreed 7. Construction Surface Water Management Plan to be submitted and agreed 8. SuDS Maintenance Plan and Schedule to be submitted and agreed 9. Gas Protection Measures Implementation Plan to be submitted and agreed 10. Prior to being discharged, surface water from parking areas shall be passed through an oil separator 11. No development within 12 metres of the top of the bank of all watercourses, crossing or running adjacent to site 12. Vegetation to be cleared outside of bird nesting season 13. Mitigation for protected species to be implemented in accordance with approved Ecological Appraisal 14. Further survey of protected species should development be delayed 15. No further trees to be felled other than those approved 16. Protect existing trees with fencing 17. Landscaping works in accordance with approved scheme 18. Landscaping works to be carried out within 1 year of completion of the development 19. Development to be implemented in accordance with approved details regarding external lighting 20. Development to be implemented and maintained in accordance with approved drainage strategy and flood risk assessment. 21. Development to be implemented in accordance with approved Site Traffic Management Method Statement 22. Acoustic fencing adjacent to existing cottages to be erected in accordance with approved details 23. Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Management Plan to be implemented and maintained in accordance with approved details 24. Finished floor, site levels and ground modelling to be carried out in accordance with approved details 25. Mitigation of SSSI to be implemented in accordance with approved Gas Management Strategy 26. Details of CCTV prior to installation 27. Details of extraction equipment to be submitted prior to installation 28. Details of gatehouse, plant, equipment and machinery prior to installation 29. Details of solar thermal equipment prior to installation 30. No outside storage 31. No outdoor working in case of a B2 Use Class 32. Development shall not be used for B2 Use Class purposes unless all of the B2 car/HGV parking has been provided in accordance with approved details 33. Development shall not be used for B8 Use Class purposes unless all of the B8 car/HGV parking has been provided in accordance with approved details. 34. Cycle parking to be provided in accordance with approved details 35. No surface water drainage onto public highway 36. Any vehicular access gates/barriers erected set back minimum distance 37. Removal of permitted development rights to office for future conversion of offices to residential dwellings 38. Scheme for the provision of public transport services between the SUE and the Strategic Employment Site to be submitted and agreed NOTES TO COMMITTEE

Relevant Planning Policies

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Planning Practice Guidance (2014)

Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (February 2013)

Policy CS1 Strategy for Locating New Development Policy CS2 Design of New Development Policy CS3 Sustainable Urban Extension Policy CS4 Strategic Employment Site Policy CS6 Employment Policy CS10 Transport Infrastructure Policy CS11 Infrastructure, Services and Facilities to Support Growth Policy CS12 Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions Policy CS14 Green Infrastructure Policy CS16 Green Wedges Policy CS18 Countryside Policy CS19 Biodiversity and Geo-diversity Policy CS20 Historic Environment and Culture Policy CS21 Climate Change Policy CS22 Flood Risk Management Policy CS24 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Blaby District Local Plan (BDLP) (1999) (Saved Policies)

Policy T3 Highway Standards and Service Provision Policy T6 Parking and Servicing Policy T8 Off Road Facilities for Loading, Unloading and Servicing Policy T10 Car Parking and Servicing Areas Design Policy C2 Other Development in the Countryside Policy C3 Green Wedges Policy CE1 Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites Policy CE12 Conservation Areas; Traffic Levels Policy CE22 Landscaping Policy CE25 Crime Prevention Policy CE26 Light Pollution Policy M2 Unstable Land Policy M3 Contaminated Land

Other Supporting Documents

Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (January 2017) Strategic Green Wedge Review (June 2009). Blaby Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment (May 2008).

Consultation Summary

Blaby District Council - Economic Development – Supports the proposed development as it is considered that the scheme will deliver significant socio economic benefits to enable growth within priority sectors and will also enable employment growth to be realised within the district, offering opportunity for job creation, skills and training development to benefit local residents as well as supply chain development that can deliver advantages to local businesses.

Blaby District Council - Environmental Health – Are satisfied with the methodology and proposed mitigation in respect air quality, land contamination, drainage and lighting. Following the submission of a revision to the Sharps Gayler Environmental Noise Assessment, which included two residential properties as sensitive receptors, the Council’s Senior Environmental Health Officer is now satisfied with the recommended mitigation measures for noise.

Blaby District Council - Neighbourhood Services – No objections raised.

Blaby District Council - Open Space – Have not made comments.

Blaby District Council - Planning Policy – Have commented that the principle of development for commercial uses is established through the Core Strategy and planning application ref: 11/0100/1/OX and is generally supported subject to the proposal being in accordance with the policies contained within the Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) (February 2013).

Braunstone Town Council – Have made the following comments:

“Braunstone Town Council has no objections to the application, subject to: i. the comments of the Tree Officer being incorporated into the conditions; and ii. the proposals meeting the requirements of the relevant regulating bodies as follows:  Building Control: building design & layout  Environmental Health: Noise & light pollution  County Highways: Highway layout & design Reason: i. To ensure appropriate tree species were chosen and on appropriate planting specification and maintenance programme would be in place. ii. To ensure that the proposals complied with the relevant technical specifications.”

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs – Have not made comments.

Enderby Parish Council – Have made the following comments:

“1. Enderby Parish Council requests that the access road to/from Lubbesthorpe is finished prior to the erection of the Goodman Logistic buildings to ensure access is not restricted to and from Leicester Lane thereby minimising congestion. 2. Enderby Parish Council requests that landscaping to the South Boundary is included to screen noise from the Commercial Site.”

Environment Agency – Have not objected to the proposal and have confirmed that they are satisfied with the site investigations, risk assessment and proposed design measures for gas protection as detailed within the submitted Gas Management Strategy.

Highways England – have not objected to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions that the development will be implemented in accordance with the external lighting and drainage strategies that have been submitted in support of this application.

Historic England – No objections raised.

Leicester City Council – Although Leicester City Council has not objected to the proposal, initial concerns were raised from the City Highway Authority concerning scoping and trip generations. Following further consultation with the City Highway Authority, confirmation has been received that they are now satisfied that their initial concerns have been addressed.

Leicestershire County Council - Archaeology – No objections raised.

Leicestershire County Council - Ecology – Raised a holding objection to the proposal based on the impacts caused by proposed external lighting. Following the submission of a revised external lighting schedule, the County Ecologist has confirmed that the proposed scheme and ecological appraisal are acceptable.

Leicestershire County Council - Footpaths – No objections raised.

Leicestershire County Council – Forestry – Recommendations were made regarding landscaping, specifically the proposed tree planting. The applicant has made revisions to the proposed landscaping scheme to incorporate the species suggested in accordance with the County Forestry Team Leader’s suggestions.

Leicestershire County Council - Highways – Have not raised any objections and are satisfied that the residual cumulative impacts of the development can be mitigated and are not considered severe in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF to the proposal, subject to the imposition of conditions and highway contributions to be included within a Section 106 Agreement.

Leicestershire County Council – Historic Buildings Officer – The County’s Principal Historic Buildings Officer has commented that the proposed development is likely to have an adverse impact on the historic setting of Enderby Hall and it’s parkland, referring to National legislation and planning policy guidance on the importance of conservation to designated heritage assets, stating that any harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Following the submission of amended plans, no further comments have been received.

Leicestershire County Council - Local Lead Flood Authority – Have not objected to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions in respect of surface water, the submission of a surface water management plan, the submission of a sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) maintenance plan and securing further infiltration testing.

Leicestershire Police – Have not made comments.

Leicester Forest East Parish Council – Have not made comments.

Narborough Parish Council – Have not made comments.

National Grid – Have not made comments.

Natural England – No objections raised.

Ramblers Association – Have not made any comments.

Severn Trent Water – Have not made any comments.

Third Party Representations

Four letters of representation have been received. Three letters, two of which are from the same individual, are from local residents objecting to the proposal in respect of the following issues:

 Increase in noise and disruption during the construction and operational phases;  Structural disruption to the foundations of the cottages during the operational phase due to excavation and heavy plant movement;  Noise pollution for the occupiers nearby residential dwellings;  Not satisfied with the proposed mitigation to noise and disturbance;  Increase in dust;  Impact in lighting when the development is operational;  Visual impact;  Impact on bats.

A letter has also been received from SUEZ Recycling and Recovery UK Ltd (SUEZ) who are the operators of the gassing landfill site at the former quarry known as Enderby Warren. Whilst the letter states that SUEZ support the principle of the proposed development, SUEZ have objected to the application, raising concerns over the robustness of the gas testing investigations and proposed gas mitigation detailed within the Gas Management Strategy. SUEZ have requested that additional gas testing is undertaken.

Relevant Planning History

11/0100/1/OX Outline application for 4,250 dwellings, a mixed use APPROVED district centre and two mixed use local centres 14/01/2014 featuring a supermarket, retail, commercial, employment, leisure, health, community and residential uses, non-residential institutions including a secondary school, primary schools and nurseries, an employment site of 21 hectares, open spaces, woodlands, new access points and associated facilities and infrastructure, and detailed proposals for two new road bridges over the M1 motorway and M69 motorway, and two road access points from Beggars Lane and new accesses from Meridian Way, Chapel Green/Baines Lane and Leicester Lane

17/0130/DOC Discharge of conditions 61 and 62 access to APPROVED Leicester lane and junction improvements at 06/03/2017 Leicester Lane / B4114

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Site

The application site comprises of an area of land some 15.5 hectares (approximately 35 acres) in size and is located approximately 800 metres to the east of the built up area of Enderby. The site is constrained by the M1 motorway to the east, the B5365 (Leicester Lane) with the M69 motorway situated approximately 400 metres to the north. An established employment and retail areas of Grove Park and Fosse Park respectively are situated beyond the M1 motorway to the east.

The land has previously been used for grazing land/farmland and is bounded along its southern and eastern boundaries by a mixture of native hedgerows, planted landscaping and timber post and rail fencing. A mature woodland and pond area known as Fishpool Spinney are located along the northern edge of the site with privately owned parkland situated to the west. To the north west lies a landfill site known as Enderby Warren and a geological Site of Special Scientific Interest. In addition, two residential dwellings are situated along the site’s north western boundary on Harolds Lane. Further dwellings and farmsteads exist to the north of these properties.

A site access and short section of road and footway off Leicester Lane have already been constructed in accordance with application 17/0130/DOC.

The Proposal

This application seeks full planning permission for a commercial development comprising of the erection of two employment buildings for B2/B8 (general industrial and storage/distribution) including ancillary integral office accommodation and associated parking, landscaping, drainage and infrastructure. Whilst the proposed development would result in one of the units exceeding the height parameters set on the approved Outline application granted under 11/0100/1/OX by approximately 2.8 metres, the development area is wholly contained within the original site area of the approved Outline planning permission and forms part of the first phase of development of the proposed Strategic Employment Site (SES) as part of the New Lubbesthorpe Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE).

The first unit consists of a rectangular warehouse building with a floor space of approximately 29,808 sq. metres with a length and width of some 248 metres by 120 metres respectively, including a haunch height of some 15 metres and a shallow arched “Griffon” roof with an overall height of 17.8 metres. The main elevations of the building would be treated in profile cladding with a vertical emphasis of three tones of grey in a random arrangement.

The ancillary offices are ‘L-shaped’ at three storeys in height equating to a total floor area of some 1,068 sq. metres, wrapping around the south western corner of the building. The elevations to the offices would be glazed and clad in a combination of timber and composite steel. A single storey hub office with a flat roof is also proposed on the western elevation, overlooking the vehicular access, servicing yard and parking area. This element of the building would be clad in composite steel, similar to the office element. Unit 1 is served by a staff parking area immediately to the south of the building and a parking, delivery and servicing area for heavy goods vehicles (HGV’s) to the west.

The second unit also consists of a rectangular warehouse but has a considerably smaller floor area of approximately 8,506 sq. metres with a length and width of some 127 metres by 67 metres respectively. The building would have the same roof design as Unit 1 but would have a lower haunch height of some 12 metres and an overall height of approximately 15 metres. The treatment of the main elevations of the warehouse and office would be consistent with those used in Unit 1, however, Unit 2 proposes a smaller office element situated solely within the first floor with a floor area of approximately 384 sq. metres. The offices are located on the western elevation of the building and will address the spine road. The parking and servicing areas serving Unit 2 are located to both the north and south of the building.

Due to the inconsistent land levels on site, areas of cut and fill are proposed in order to enable the platforms for Units 1 and 2 to be created, resulting with finished floor level of 78.750 and 78.650 AOD respectively. Furthermore, sprinkler tanks at a height of approximately 8.5 metres are proposed to each unit and are to be located away from the road frontage.

The site is to be accessed via Leicester Lane where a vehicular access has been delivered in accordance with the original S.106 Agreement attached to the Outline planning permission. The proposal also includes the construction of a road which is to be constructed to an adoptable standard to the satisfaction of the County Highway Authority. In addition, a comprehensive landscaping scheme is proposed consisting of two attenuation ponds, an earth bund between 3 and 4 metres high and various tree/hedgerow planting.

Adequate parking facilities for HGV’s, cars, motor cycles and bicycles are proposed within the parking and servicing areas for each building. Due to the potential for either unit to be used in connection with a B2 (general industry) or B8 (storage and distribution) use, the applicant has sought a degree of flexibility in respect of staff parking arrangements for Units 1 and 2 in order to cater for a flux in parking demands on the site respective of each use and to comply with the 6C’s Design Guidance. As such, in the event that Unit 1 is used for B2 purposes, a total of 557 staff car parking spaces are proposed, with 270 spaces proposed should a B8 use be operated. Similarly, Unit 2 proposes 162 car parking spaces should the option of a B2 use be taken up, with 90 car spaces proposed in the event that a B8 use occupies Unit 2.

The application is also accompanied by an Environmental Assessment as required at the time of submission by the Town and County Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations 2015. The applicants have also confirmed their willingness to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to secure, where appropriate, any Developer Contribution Requests. Planning Considerations

Section 38(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless there are other material considerations which indicate otherwise. This section of the report will first consider the proposed development against the policy background and then consider any other material considerations.

There are a number of themes which run through national guidance as expressed in the National Planning Policy Framework and these are generally in line with local policies expressed through the Development Plan. Key themes in the case of this application are that new development should be sustainable and the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed is encouraged.

NATIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

The National Planning Policy Framework establishes the key principles for proactively delivering sustainable development through the development plan system and the determination of planning applications. The emphasis is that development plans allow for development of sufficient housing in sustainable locations and that new development is of good design.

It also sets out the planning approach that the Government wishes to see in relation to many aspects of the planning system, with the golden thread running through the decision making process being the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

It suggests that in decision-taking, this 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, to grant permission unless:

 Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against policies in the NPPF taken as a whole; or  Specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.

In addition, the NPPF sets out that the Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths and to meet the twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future. In order to achieve this, significant weight is placed on the planning system to encourage and support economic growth and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth.

The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) (2014) provides supporting guidance to the interpretation of the NPPF.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013)

The adopted Core Strategy (February 2013) is now part of the Development Plan for the District of Blaby. It is an up-to-date plan that is consistent with National Policy. Therefore, the policies of the Core Strategy should be given full statutory weight. The following policies are the most relevant to the proposed development.

Policy CS1 – Strategy for Locating New Development

Policy CS1 seeks to focus new development including employment in the most sustainable locations in the district, primarily within and adjoining the Principal Urban Area (PUA) of Leicester, however, provision is made for the development needs of settlements outside the PUA.

The site where this development is proposed forms part of the 21 hectares of employment land known as the Strategic Employment Site (SES) at New Lubbesthorpe. It is considered that the proposal is consistent with this policy and will contribute towards the delivery of employment land targets at the New Lubbesthorpe SES and the District.

Policy CS2 – Design of New Development

Policy CS2 seeks to ensure that a high quality environment is achieved in all new development proposals, respecting distinctive local character and contributing towards creating places of high architectural and urban design quality. It is considered that the design of this new development is appropriate to its local context and seeks to create woodland and landscaped areas around the proposed buildings and along the proposed roadside.

Policy CS4 – Strategic Employment Site

Policy CS4 seeks to provide the appropriate quantity, quality and mix of employment opportunities to meet the needs of the District’s current and future populations and to meet strategic employments, education and training needs. The wider employment development at New Lubbesthorpe is considered to be a Strategic Employment Site, providing a mixture and quantum of B1, B2 and B8 uses. In this context, the proposed scheme which includes a potential mixture of B2 and B8 uses with ancillary B1 office accommodation is considered to be in accordance with this policy.

Policy CS6 – Employment

Similarly to Policy CS4, Policy CS6 seeks to provide an appropriate range of employment opportunities, however it also allows for growth of existing businesses and for inward investment in order to help meet the needs of the District’s current and future populations. The proposal forms part of the overall Strategic Employment Site at New Lubbesthorpe with the Outline planning permission consenting for a variety of commercial uses. It is considered that the proposal seeks to deliver a mixture of employment opportunities which will bring economic and social benefits to the District.

Policy CS10 – Transport Infrastructure

Policy CS10 ensures that appropriate measures are taken to mitigate the impacts of the development and ensure that it is supported by the provision of adequate infrastructure and does not overburden existing infrastructure. In addition, the policy seeks to deliver the transport needs of the District and encourages the use of more sustainable forms of transport (including walking, cycling, other forms of non- motorised transport and public transport).

On the basis that the proposal seeks a development of no more than 40,000 sq. metres of B2/B8 commercial floor space, the County Highway Authority are satisfied that the impact of the proposal was sufficiently assessed as part of the Outline application approved under 11/0100/1/OX. In order to maximise modal shift, safe, sustainable and accessible transport modes are to be promoted and existing facilities will be enhanced as part of this scheme.

Policy CS11 – Infrastructure, Services and Facilities to Support Growth

Policy CS11 seeks to ensure that all new development is supported by good access to infrastructure, services and facilities to support growth. The provisions of significant new infrastructure has been put in place under the terms of the existing S.106 Agreement with further infrastructure to be provided such as the bridge over the M69 motorway, linking the SES with the Sustainable Urban Extension at New Lubbesthorpe.

Policy CS12 – Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions

Policy CS12 ensures that the impacts on local infrastructure, services and facilities are mitigated through the use of planning obligations. Where requirements for infrastructure, services and facilities arising from growth are identified, it is expected that developers will contribute towards their provision.

Policy CS14 – Green Infrastructure

Policy CS14 seeks to preserve, enhance and provide new networks of multi- functional green space. The proposed development includes significant landscaping to the south adjacent to Leicester Lane and along the spine road. Areas of green space and woodland are also being retained to the north and south of the proposed buildings.

Policy CS16 – Green Wedges

Policy CS16 highlights Green Wedges as important strategic areas designated to prevent the merging of settlements, guide the development form, provide a green lung into the urban areas and provide a recreational resource. The detailed boundaries of the existing Green Wedges will be formally reviewed through the “Allocations, Designations and Development Management DPD”. The application site lies along the eastern fringe of the settlement boundary of Enderby with part of the site situated in an area of Green Wedge located immediately to the north of Leicester Lane, immediately to the west of the M1 motorway and to the south of the M69 motorway, wherein there is a general presumption against development subject to certain exceptions. Whilst such commercial development is not one of these exceptions, it is recognised that the principle for the development of this site for employment purposes as part of the wider SES at New Lubbesthorpe has been accepted further to the granting of Outline planning permission under ref: 11/0100/1/OX.

Policy CS18 – Countryside

Policy CS18 seeks to prevent inappropriate development within the countryside. The Policy states that planning permission will not be granted for built development, or other development which would have a significantly adverse effect on the appearance or character of the landscape. However, the Policy goes on to state that the need to retain Countryside will be balanced against the need to provide new development (including housing) in the most sustainable locations.

Part of the application site is located in an area designated as countryside and whilst such a proposal would not usually be considered acceptable in such a location, it is noted that the principle for the development of this site for employment purposes as part of the wider SES at New Lubbesthorpe has been accepted further to the granting of Outline planning permission under ref: 11/0100/1/OX.

Policy CS19 – Bio-diversity and Geo-diversity

Policy CS19 outlines a strategic objective is to protect the important areas of the Districts natural environment (species and habitats), landscape and geology and to improve biodiversity, wildlife habitats and corridors. The site is adjacent to a geological Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) however the impact on the SSSI was analysed as part of the consideration of the approved Outline scheme and no further concerns are raised as a result of this proposed employment development. In addition, Natural England has confirmed that the proposed mitigation set out in the applicant’s Geological Investigation and Ground Gas Management Strategy dated March 2017 is acceptable.

The proposal includes the retention and creation of large areas of landscaping which seeks to strengthen and integrate natural habitat networks across the SUE. The proposed SES site incorporates areas of open space to the north and south of the proposed development and seeks to provide two attenuation basins. Schemes are also proposed to mitigate for various protected species.

Policy CS20 – Historic Environment and Culture

Policy CS20 seeks to preserve, protect and where possible, enhance heritage assets such as historic sites, Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments and archaeological remains, including their setting. The Policy states that new development should also avoid harm to the significance of historic sites, buildings or areas and their setting through improving design quality. In addition, the Policy offers a presumption that new development should make a positive contribution to the character and distinctiveness of the local area.

The site is situated in excess of 800 metres to the east of Enderby Hall, a Grade II Listed Building and is some 770 metres to the east of St. John’s Baptist Church, a Grade II* Listed Building. In addition, the site is adjacent to Enderby Conservation Area and an archaeological assessment of the site has confirmed that significant heritage assets are present within the vicinity of the development area. As such, the proposed development is to be considered and assessed in accordance with National legislation and planning policy, by identifying and assessing the significance of any designated and non-designated heritage assets both on or adjacent to the site that may be affected by the proposal. Having regard to Paragraph 134 of the NPPF, the County Council’s Principal Historic Buildings Officer considered that some harm was perceived to Enderby Hall and Enderby Conservation area during the determination of the outline planning application approved under 11/0100/1/OX.

The overarching statutory obligation to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting is contained in Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Government policy relating to conserving and enhancing the historic environment is set out in Section 12 of the NPPF. Furthermore, Paragraph 134 of the Framework states that where less than substantial harm will be caused to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The County’s Principal Historic Buildings Officer has raised concerns that despite the screening afforded by the existing trees and vegetation, the historic setting of Enderby Hall and its adjacent parkland are likely to be affected by the encroachment of a proposed employment development. In addition, concerns have also been raised in respect of the proposed height of Unit 1, the location of the service yards and the treatment of the external elevations.

The site is constrained to the east by the M1 motorway and whilst this boundary benefits from substantial planting, the elevated M1 motorway and Topps Tiles building and Grove Park are clearly visible to the west from the edge of the ha-ha in the grounds of Enderby Hall. However, Enderby Hall is only partially visible from application site due to the significant screening provided by trees within its curtilage and adjacent parkland. There is no direct visual linkage between St. John’s Baptist Church and the application site, save for some views from the previously extended cemetery.

Unit 1 runs parallel to the M1 with its length running north to south and is positioned in such a way that the northern half of its footprint recedes away from the highway and the designated heritage assets. The office element of Unit 1 addresses the roadside and hosts a service and parking area within its frontage running parallel to the building itself. A further parking area is proposed to the south of the building. Unit 2 is orientated at an angle to Unit 1 with its offices also addressing the road. A servicing/parking area is situated immediately to the north of the building with a further parking area proposed to the south.

Amendments have been submitted comprising of the re-positioning of the sprinkler tanks to less prominent locations, amendments to building materials/colours and alterations to the proposed landscaping scheme. In addition, the prospect of relocating the parking/service areas to the rear of Unit 1 was considered given its scale, mass and potential visual impact.

The County Council’s Principal Historic Buildings Officer has not offered further comment on the amended plans, however, based on his initial observations, reference was made to Paragraph 134 of the NPPF and that the proposal would cause less than substantial harm to Enderby Hall and Enderby Conservation Area. In terms of this proposal, your Officers have weighed up the perceived harm against the public benefits of the proposal.

In doing so, your Officers acknowledge that the building height to Unit 1 exceeds the height parameters set by the outline permission and that any significant changes within the landscape adjacent to these designated heritage assets are likely to manifest in a degree of harm to their setting and significance. However, your Officers also acknowledge that the site benefits from an established outline planning permission for an employment development and that the remainder of the proposal is in accordance with the original parameters of the outline consent.

Evidence has been submitted to indicate that Enderby Hall would be situated some 20 metres higher than the floor levels of Units 1 and 2 following the essential cut and fill exercise required in order to create the building platforms. Given the intervening distance between the two sites and having taken into consideration the change in levels, existing vegetation and proposed planting and landscaping your Officers consider that the increase in height to Unit 1 is unlikely to be discernible from the grounds of Enderby Hall. In addition, it is considered that due to its proposed position and orientation, a significant element of Unit 1 and its servicing parking area will be set back from the road. A planted earth bund is also proposed some 3 – 4 metres in height for a distance of approximately 400 metres which will screen a significant element of Unit 1 and its associated service yard.

Furthermore, extensive tree and hedgerow planting along the edges of the car parks and service areas, landscaped verges and within the parkland will significantly soften the urban appearance of the employment units once it has matured and established. With this in mind, it is considered the vertical emphasis of the external elevations together with the proposed landscaping works and tree planting will assist in breaking up the overall mass and expanse of the development.

Whilst no further observations were received from the County Council’s Principal Historic Buildings Officer, your Officers consider that it has taken full account of the designated heritage assets within close vicinity to the site and has had due regard to National legislation and planning policy. Your Officers have sought amendments to the original proposal and enhancements to the proposed landscaping scheme in an attempt to reduce the perceived harm at Enderby Hall and Enderby Conservation Area.

It is therefore considered that subject to the proposed development being implemented in full accordance with the submitted plans and the implementation of the necessary mitigation afforded by the landscaping scheme, the significant economic and social benefits of delivering this employment development as part of the New Lubbesthorpe SUE, which will go some way towards meeting the existing and future employment needs of the local and wider area, will outweigh the less than substantial harm to the significance of Enderby Hall and Enderby Conservation Area. On this basis, your Officers consider that the proposed development accords with Policy CS20.

Policy CS21 – Climate Change

Policy CS21 states that development should be focussed in the most sustainable locations and layout and design should reduce energy demand and increase efficiency. The site forms part of the wider strategic development at New Lubbesthorpe by virtue of receiving Outline planning permission which is considered to be a Sustainable Urban Extension. In addition, the proposals have been designed to achieve a minimum Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) “Good” rating with a target of achieving a BREEAM “Very Good” rating. The scheme also incorporates the use of SuDS.

Policy CS22 – Flood Risk Management

Policy CS22 sets out strategic objectives to ensure that all new development minimised vulnerability and provides resilience to flooding. The entirety of the application site is situated within Flood Zone 1, which has the lowest probability of flooding.

Policy CS24 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Policy CS24 reflects the overarching principle of the NPPF that the Government wishes to see in relation to the planning system, with the golden thread running through the decision making process being the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Policy CS24 requires that when considering development proposals, the District Council always work proactively with applicants to find solutions which mean that proposals can be approved wherever possible.

Blaby District Local Plan (BDLP) (1999)

Although the Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013) has been adopted, a number of policies from the Blaby District Local Plan (1999) continue to be saved. The following policies are of relevance to this application.

Policy T3 – Highway Standards Parking and Service Provision Policy T6 – Parking and Servicing Policy T8 – Off Road Facilities for Loading, Unloading and Servicing Policy T10 – Car parking and Service Area Needs Policy T12 –Access and Mobility Needs

The main highway implications relate to the effect of the proposal on the local highway network and the wider strategic road network (B4114, A5460, M1 and M69) and pedestrian and cycle links to the employment and housing sites.

Matters relating to highways, traffic and access arrangements have previously been assessed under the previously approved Outline scheme under 11/0100/1/OX with highway improvement works secured within the existing S.106 Agreement to mitigate the added capacity caused as a result of the SUE on the local highway network.

The submitted transport statement accompanying this application concludes that in relation to highways, traffic and access arrangements, the proposed development is consistent with the Outline scheme in terms of the assessment parameters. In addition, various off-site highway improvements required by the S.106 Agreement have already been implemented as part of the delivery of the SUE, including the bridge over the M1 motorway, improvements to the B4114/Leicester Lane junction and the creation of a new access of Leicester Lane itself.

In terms of existing transport provision, the X55 Service currently operates along Leicester Lane with the 50 and 50A Services operating along the B4114 (St. Johns). A park and ride service (203 Service) also exists on the B4114/Leicester Lane junction. In addition, as part of the Public Transport Strategy secured under the Outline consent, a 3 metre wide shared footway/cycleway is to be provided as part of this first phase of development linking with the existing footway/cycleway off Leicester Lane. The proposal, if approved, will also require the submission of a detailed Travel Plan Framework in order to promote sustainable alternatives to car travel.

The County Highway Authority has not objected to the principle of the proposed development in terms of the principle of development given that the quantum of proposed employment development (40,000 sq. metres) for B2/B8 uses within this first phase of the SES does not exceed those set within the Outline permission. On this basis, the County Highway Authority are satisfied that the impact and principle of the proposed SES and SUE were sufficiently assessed as part of the Outline planning application.

Furthermore, no concerns have been raised in respect of off-street parking subject to the imposition of a suitably worded condition to enable the implementation of a scheme where the larger staff parking area would be provided in the event of a primary B2 use, as opposed to a B8 use. Parking provision is also proposed for wheel chair users, electric charge points and cycle parking for both units which the County Highway Authority considers to be acceptable and consistent with the guidance contained within the 6C’s Design Guide.

Policy C2 – Countryside

Part of the application site is located within an area of countryside where there is a general presumption against development in countryside unless it is essential for the needs of agriculture, etc. The policy does allow for small scale uses and a range of criteria against which any proposals for development will be measured. (See CS18 above) Policy C3 – Green Wedges

Part of this site is located within the Green Wedge as identified on the Proposals Map of the Blaby District Local Plan (1999). Policy C3 allows for development for agriculture, recreation, forestry, transport routes and mineral uses only, provided that it is designed and landscaped in a manner which does not damage the open and undeveloped character of the Green Wedge. (See CS16 above)

Policy CE1 – Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites

Following archaeological assessments of the site, the presence of significant heritage assets have been identified within the development area. Saved Policy CE1 states that development should not adversely affect the preservation or setting of a Scheduled Ancient Monument or other important archaeological site. (See CS20 above)

Policy CE12 – Conservation Areas; Traffic Levels

Saved Policy CE12 states a presumption against development which would generate traffic levels, parking, noise or environmental problems which would be detrimental to the character or appearance of a conservation area. Outline planning permission 11/0100/1/OX has been granted at the application site for a SES where the principle of traffic levels and trip generations has previously been accepted. Furthermore, the Council’s Senior Environmental Health Officer is satisfied with the methodology and proposed mitigation measures in respect dust suppression during the construction phase of the development.

Comments have been made in respect of the robustness of the air quality assessment for the operational phase of the development should vehicles fail to enter the site from the southern access at Leicester Lane. It is noted that for the short to medium term, there is no alternative access to the proposed employment site other than that at the Leicester Lane access. By virtue of the site’s close proximity to the M69 and Junction 21 of the M1, it is not anticipated that vehicles associated with the day to day operations will enter the site via an alternative means of access. Although it is acknowledged that the provision of an alternative means of access to the site will be available once the bridge crossing the M69 motorway has been delivered however, the delivery of this infrastructure is not envisaged until the delivery of the second phase of the employment site, which could be upwards of 5 years.

Air quality at New Lubbesthorpe is continuing to be monitored periodically in accordance with the conditions attached to and forming part of the outline planning permission for the wider development of the SUE. In addition, Blaby District Council’s Air Quality Annual Status Report (July 2017) proposes to declare a new Air Quality Management Area at Mill Hill in Enderby to monitor air quality levels in this area.

Policy CE22 – Landscaping

Saved Policy CE22 states that develop is required to take existing landscape, ecological and geological features into account and incorporate appropriate landscaping. (See CS14)

Policy CE25 – Crime Prevention

Saved Policy CE25 states that development is required to incorporate any design measures aimed at reducing the potential for crime. The proposed staff and visitor parking areas and the wider site are considered to be surfaced, landscaped and illuminated appropriately. Any CCTV including the proposed location of the offices would provide surveillance to help to limit crime.

Policy CE26 –Light Pollution

Saved Policy CE26 states that development should not be of nuisance to nearby residents and/road users, create unnecessary levels of lighting or be significantly out of keeping with the area. By virtue of the extant outline permission, the principle of an employment development has been established in this location and the wider area is already well lit given the presence of the M1 motorway and existing commercial uses to the east.

In addition, the proposed external lighting scheme submitted in support of this application is considered to be acceptable by the Council’s Senior Environmental Health Officer and will not lead rise to in unnecessary light spillage or nuisance to nearby residents or road users in this already well lit area.

Policy M2 – Unstable Land

Saved Policy M2 requires development proposals on or adjacent to unstable land to be accompanied by a stability report. The evidence contained within the submitted Environmental Statement concludes that the effects of all potential geological effects are negligible and would not result in any significant adverse impacts.

Policy M3 – Contaminated Land

Saved Policy M3 states that planning permission will only be granted where the proposed development can be undertaken safely with regard to risk from land contamination. An objection has been raised against the development by SUEZ Recycling and Recovery UK Ltd (SUEZ) who are the operators of the gassing landfill site at the former quarry known as Enderby Warren. SUEZ have raised concerns over the robustness of the gas testing investigations and proposed gas mitigation detailed within the Gas Management Strategy and as a result have requested that additional gas testing is undertaken.

The evidence and results of the investigations in respect of ground conditions and migrating landfill gas are detailed within the submitted Environmental Statement. Investigations were undertaken and the subsequent results within the Gas Management Strategy were shared with the Environment Agency prior to being submitted in support of this planning application. The Environment Agency have confirmed that they are satisfied with the results and robustness of the site investigations undertaken within this report and are also satisfied with the risk assessment and proposed design measures for gas protection as detailed within the submitted Gas Management Strategy which concludes that the effects of all potential contamination and landfill gas are negligible and would not result in any significant adverse impacts.

Material Considerations

In addition to the policy considerations set out above, there are substantive material considerations that relate to the development of this site, which are:

 Impact on Residential Properties  Landscape Impact  Socio-Economic  Developer Contributions  Conclusion

Impact of Residential Properties

The application site adjoins two residential dwellings known as No’s. 1 and 2 Warren Farm Cottage which are located along the site’s north western boundary. In addition, three residential dwellings known as Keepers Lodge, Keepers Cottage and Warren Farm are located approximately 30 metres, 50 metres and 170 metres respectively to the north west of the site. These dwellings are all owned and managed by the Trustees of E.R.B. Drummond (deceased) who are the primary land owners of the New Lubbesthorpe SUE. Furthermore, Enderby Hall and its residents are situated some 800 metres to the west of the site.

The proposal has also been supported by a lighting scheme that the Council’s Senior Environmental Health Officer considers to be acceptable and will not result in unnecessary levels of light pollution subject to careful instalment and maintenance in perpetuity.

An acoustic survey has been prepared by Sharps Gayler in support of the application and has identified the gardens and exposed facades of the dwellings at No’s. 1 and 2 Warren Cottages as sensitive receptors to noise given their immediate proximity to the development site. The day and night time ambient noise levels of the M1 motorway have also been taken into consideration and the survey has identified that once operational, the proposed development would have an “adverse” impact on the dwellings at Warren Cottages, but not a “significant” impact. Although the impact is not considered to be “significant” in nature, the survey confirms that the impact would be to an extent whereby mitigation would be required to minimise noise as far as possible. Whilst the acoustic survey has not taken into consideration the impacts of construction noise, it can be assumed that the construction process will cause disruption during the build-out of the development.

Mitigation is proposed in the form of a 2.4 metre high acoustic fence enclosing the eastern and southern boundary of the cottages, including double glazing or secondary glazing to bedrooms with a ventilation or cooling system to allow the windows to remain closed. In consultation with the Council’s Senior Environmental Health Officer, it is considered that the proposed mitigation in respect of noise would be sufficient to mitigate the “adverse” noise impact to an acceptable level, subject to this being appropriately secured for implementation.

In addition, Enderby Hall and its occupiers are located approximately 800 metres to the west of the application site. Given the intervening distances between the site and Enderby Hall, including any existing and proposed landscaping and planting arrangements, it is considered that the proposed development will not have an unsatisfactory impact on the living conditions of the residents at Enderby Hall.

It is understood that the dwellings adjacent to the application site are currently occupied and are let by the Drummond Estate on short term tenancies. Whilst the visual and practical relationship between Warren Cottages and the proposed warehouses are considered to be undesirable in the long term, the reality is that these properties along with Keepers Lodge, Keepers Cottage and Warren Farm are programmed to be demolished in the short to medium term when the second phase of employment development comes forward. This is in accordance with the phasing schedule approved under the Outline permission.

Objections have been raised by the occupiers of Warren Cottages, the reasons of which have been referred to earlier in this report. Having considered the mitigation measures and given that the principle of an employment development has already been approved under the Outline planning permission, your Officers have to take a pragmatic and realistic view in on this matter. Therefore, on the basis that the aforementioned properties owned by the Trustees of E.R.B. Drummond (deceased) will not have a long term presence on the site, it is considered that it would be unreasonable to resist the proposed development on residential impact.

Landscape Impact

The Council’s Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment (LSCA) designates this area as Lubbesthorpe Agricultural Parkland and has a gentle undulating topography with significant blocks of woodland reinforcing field pattern. The key pressures impacting on the area are identified as infrastructure improvements to the M1 and M69 as well as future expansion along the fringes of adjacent settlements. Guidelines for the long term management of the area conclude that the integrity of the parkland at Enderby should be retained including the planting of new blocks of woodland, conservation of existing blocks of woodland and enhanced hedgerow tree planting around settlement fringes and farmsteads.

At the time of publication of the LSCA, planning permission had not been granted for an SUE on the land however, the site has received outline planning permission for an SES with the remaining phases of the SES occurring on land to the south of the M69 and west of the M1. The proposed development would be situated on land on the eastern fringes of Enderby, immediately to the west of the M1 motorway and the established employment site at Grove Park.

The extensive nature of this proposed development would inevitably transform the previously undeveloped character of the area although this is not considered to significantly exceed the level of impact of the scheme granted Outline planning permission. Unit 1 of the proposal would have a higher overall height at 17.8 metres compared to the parameters of the Outline approval. However, any visual impact is not considered to be intrinsically harmful given the close proximity of highway infrastructure and existing large scale employment uses in the locality.

The proposed development includes the retention of areas of green space to the north and south of Unit 1 including the creation of a woodland area and attenuation pond to the north that would be in keeping with the wider Green Wedge and Countryside location. It is also considered that the proposed earth bund and tree planting will help to mitigate any distant visual impacts.

In terms of illumination, the existing landscape of the M1 and Grove Park is substantially lit. A lighting scheme has been submitted in support of this proposal to ensure that the development should not lead to any unacceptable and unnecessary increase in lighting or overspill.

Socio-Economic

The site comprises of approximately 15.5 hectares of the previously committed 21 hectares of employment land to be delivered as part of the SES in conjunction with the wider New Lubbesthorpe SUE. The proposal seeks to deliver two warehouses for general industrial (B2) and storage and distribution (B8) purposes with ancillary office accommodation (B1) therefore providing a mixture of employment uses as part of the first phase to the wider SES.

The site is located in close proximity to Junction 21 of the M1 motorway and the M69 and close to the established employment and retail areas of Grove Park and Fosse Park. On this basis, the accessibility of the site to the wider and local highway network is considered to be advantageous from an operational perspective.

Delivery of the SES is considered to be of great significance. Firstly, in order for the SES to achieve its functions of meeting both local and wider employment needs, having regard to the potential end users and their respective industry it is forecast that the proposed development could create between 500 and 1000 permanent jobs. Secondly, it is considered that delivery of the first phase of employment development will encourage confidence in economic markets and employment sectors to invest in the delivery of the remaining phases of the SES, including key highway infrastructure.

Developer Contributions

Policy CS11 of the Core Strategy indicates that new developments should be supported by the required physical, social and environment infrastructure at the appropriate time. Policy CS12 seeks to ensure that the requirements for infrastructure, services and facilities arising from any development will be sought in accordance with the Council’s latest Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions SPD.

A separate legal agreement has previously been secured as part of the approved outline planning permission under 11/0100/1/OX with Leicestershire County Council including various obligations to secure community facilities, open space, affordable housing, education, highways and transportation, a library hub facility and other miscellaneous contributions.

As part of this current application, it is not considered that all of the previously secured contributions secured under the outline permission are necessary or directly related to this proposal in planning terms and as such would not be fair or reasonably related to the scale of the proposed development. However, some of the previously secured contributions in terms of open space, highways and transportation and economy employment training skills are of relevance and are being carried over within a new S.106 Agreement to ensure an acceptable form of development whilst mitigating its impact on local residents and to uphold the spirit of specific open space, highway and economy employment and training contributions previously secured under the outline consent. Without these contributions, your Officers consider that this proposal would not be consistent with the vision and principles of the SUE and SES and would not have been able to recommend approval of this current application.

Leicestershire County Council requested that developer contributions are secured in the new legal agreement for travel packs, bus passes, bus stop improvements and details of the routing of construction vehicles. In respect of this, an Employment Travel Plan is being requested to ensure that prior to occupation of the employment units, the applicant demonstrates a strategy and trigger events to promote sustainable modes of transport by occupiers and visitors to the site. In addition, having re-considered their initial request, for bus stop improvements the County Highway Authority have confirmed that bus stop improvements are no longer justified given the presence of two new bus stops on Leicester Lane. The County Highway Authority have accepted the submission of a Site Traffic Management Method Statement (which confirms access and egress arrangements for the construction phases of development) in advance of this application being determined. Therefore, having regard to Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, your Officers propose a positively worded condition to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with this method statement and is not proposing to secure this obligation as part of this new S.106 agreement.

Conclusion

The application site already benefits from Outline planning permission 11/0100/1/OX for employment and it forms part of the Strategic Employment Site and designated Sustainable Urban Extension for New Lubbesthorpe within the Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013). Whilst the proposal does not conform to the approved height parameters of the outline consent, the proposal is consistent with the outline permission in terms of the development area, phasing strategy and the quantum of permitted employment floor space.

The location of the proposed development close to sensitive areas such as designated heritage assets, Enderby Warren and existing residential dwellings has been taken into consideration. By virtue of the proposed development’s design, mitigation strategies, landscaping, site investigations and developer contributions, it is considered that proposal has reacted positively to the aforementioned constraints to ensure that any subsequent impacts are minimised.

The proposed development is in conformity with the Development Plan and it is supported by the relevant policies of the NPPF. In light of the above, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and accordingly it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the stated conditions and the satisfactory signing of a Section 106 Agreement to secure obligations for essential highway, open space, noise mitigation and an economy employment training strategy.

______

17/0596FUL Registered Date EMH Housing and Regeneration Ltd 18 April 2017

Residential development comprising 2 x 3 no. bed semi- detached dwellings and 1 x 4 no. bed detached dwelling

Land adjacent to 7 Winston Avenue, Croft

Report Author: Carol Grant, Planning Officer

Contact Details: Council Offices. Tel: 0116 272 7692

Approve subject to the imposition of the following conditions:

CONDITIONS

1. Statutory time condition – 3 years 2. Approved drawings 3. Materials to be agreed in writing 4. Scheme for foul and surface water drainage to be implemented 5. Approved landscaping scheme to be implemented 6. Details of boundary fencing as submitted to be implemented 7. No additional windows to be constructed in side elevations 8. Details of acoustic vents to the windows on the fronts and side elevations of the dwellings to be submitted 9. No gates to the vehicular access 10. Car parking to be provided in accordance with approved plans 11. Proposed vehicle accesses shall have a minimum width of 2.75m 12. Pedestrian visibility splays of 1m x 1m 13. Removal of permitted development rights for extensions and detached buildings

NOTES TO COMMITTEE

Relevant Planning Policies

Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (February 2013)

Policy CS1 – Strategy for Locating New Development Policy CS2 – Design of New Development Policy CS5 – Housing Distribution Policy CS24 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Blaby District Local Plan (BDLP)

Policy R1 – Primarily Residential Area Policy TR6 – Off Street Parking Provision

Consultations

Blaby District Council Environmental Health: No objection subject to conditions.

Blaby District Council Housing Strategy Team: Have no objections and supports the application.

Leicestershire County Council Highways: Has no objections subject to the imposition of highway conditions.

Croft Parish Council: Comments as follows:

“Whilst the Parish Council have no comment to make on the details of the changes, The Council heard from a deputation of local residents with serious concerns at the proposed loss of car parking and the lack of access for the elderly, to adjacent roads and of the potential difficulties of ambulance access in future. The Parish Council supports the calling in for discussion by the Planning Committee and intends to support residents in their concerns.”

Severn Trent Water: No response

Western Power: No formal response

Third Party Representations

Following the statutory public consultation, there have been 19 objections from local residents. The objections are based on the following issues:

 New houses will be built on the existing residents car park – where will residents park?  No existing space for on-street parking for residents  Application forms are incorrect as they state that that they are providing 7 parking spaces but the reality is that they are removing 8 spaces so there will be a deficient amount of spaces available for long term residents  Loss of light to rear garden of no 7

The application has been called-in by Councillor Freer on the following grounds:

“The reason for this request is that I believe there are a number of sound planning considerations that could be deemed suitable to refuse this application such as the over bearing aspects, sunlight detraction and a number of highway considerations.”

Relevant History

None

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Proposal

This application for full planning permission proposes the erection of 2x 3no bedroom semi-detached dwellings and 1 x 4no bedroom detached dwelling with associated car parking.

The application site comprises a car park adjacent to no 7 and 9 Winston Avenue. It is a former Council owned car parking courtyard that transferred to the Three Oaks Homes under the Housing Stock Transfer in 2008. It is currently owned and controlled by the applicants East Midlands Homes. The land is covered by hard standing and bounded on three sides by residential properties. Opposite are industrial buildings. Western Power has a sub-station on the north-west corner of the site which is currently accessed from within the site.

The proposal sits centrally within the application site with the frontage facing onto Winston Avenue with the rear gardens facing the side boundary of no 9 Winston Avenue. The majority of the adjacent properties within Winston Avenue are accessed from a spur road off the main carriageway with no’s 1-19 facing inwards towards each other with pedestrian walkways and mainly open plan grass frontages. As these properties are accessed on foot only, there is no individual off-street parking provision outside of each dwelling (as would be seen in a traditionally laid out estate). The car park is currently used by residents although no formal (written) rights to legally park on the land exist.

The dwellings are indicated to be set back from the highway boundary by a minimum of 4 metres to allow for the grass verge to be retained. Unit 1 is situated approximately 3 metres away from the common boundary with no 7 Winston Avenue. The rear gardens for each dwelling is approximately 9m deep and the distance between the rear elevations of the dwellings and the rear elevation of no 9 is between 16 – 25m ( at an oblique angle).

Planning Considerations

Section 38(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless there are other material considerations which indicate otherwise. This section of the report will first consider the proposed development against the policy background and then consider any other material considerations.

There are a number of themes which run through national guidance as expressed in the National Planning Policy Framework and these are generally in line with local policies expressed through the Development Plan. Key themes in the case of this application are that new development should be sustainable and previously developed land should be developed before greenfield sites come forward.

National Planning Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework

This essential National Policy Framework establishes the key principles for proactively delivering sustainable development through the development plan system and the determination of planning applications. The emphasis is that development plans allow for development of sufficient housing in sustainable locations and that new development is of good design.

It also sets out the planning approach that the Government wishes to see in relation to many aspects of the planning system, including housing delivery - with the golden thread running through the decision making process being the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

It suggests that in decision-taking, approval should be granted for 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, to grant permission unless:

The proposal is located within the built-up area of Croft and utilises previously developed land. Consequently, given its location and its former use as a car park, the proposal demonstrates a level of sustainability in accordance with guidance contained in the NPPF.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013)

The adopted Core Strategy (February 2013) is now part of the Development Plan for the district of Blaby and the following policies are relevant to the proposed development:

Policy CS1 – Strategy for Locating New Development

Policy CS1 seeks to focus new housing development in the most sustainable locations in the district, primarily within the principal urban area (PUA) of Leicester and more sustainable towns and villages.

The site is located within the village of Croft which is designated as a “Medium Central Village” with some key services and facilities. As the site is considered as previously developed land and the development would be for social housing it is considered that re-development of the site for housing is acceptable and that the proposal is in accordance with Policy CS1.

Policy CS2 – Design of New Development

Policy CS2 seeks to ensure that a high quality environment is achieved in all new development proposals, respecting distinctive local character and the design of new development should also be appropriate to its context.

The traditional design, scale and layout of the proposed dwellings are considered appropriate for the area and the dwellings are proportionate to other residential dwellings within the vicinity. The proposed scheme respects the context of the local area and accords with Policy CS2.

Policy CS5 – Housing Distribution

Policy CS5 aims to focus new development in the most appropriate locations, the District Council seeks to distribute housing by settlement in accordance with the figures contained within the Core Strategy. The site is within the built up area of Croft where there is a requirement for additional housing.

Policy CS24 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Policy CS24 reflects the overarching principle of the NPPF whereby the District Planning Authority will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Policy CS24 requires that when considering development proposals, the District Council always work proactively with applicants to find solutions which mean that proposals can be approved wherever possible.

Blaby District Local Plan (1999)

Policy R1 – Residential Development within Primarily Residential Areas

This site is located within the Primary Residential Area of Croft, as identified on the Proposals Map of the Blaby District Local Plan (1999). It is considered that the location for this proposed residential development is acceptable, in principle, subject to the criteria set out in Policy R1.

The development will not be significantly out of keeping with the character of the area nor will it be significantly detrimental to the amenities of adjoining occupiers when weighed against the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as expressed in both the NPPF and the adopted Core Strategy.

Policy T6 – Off Street Parking Provision

Policy T6 states that new residential development should accord with the adopted car parking standards of the District Council. Having regard to this proposal, the scheme would result in the need for 7 off street car parking spaces in total. Material Considerations

In addition to the policy considerations set out above, there are two substantive material considerations that relate to the development of this site, which are:

 Principle of Development;  Design and Layout;  Impact on neighbouring properties;  Highway Considerations.

Principle of Development

The site falls within a residential area within the settlement boundary of Croft which is designated as a medium central village. Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy relates to the location for new development and states that one of the strategic objectives of the policy is to provide the appropriate quantity and mix of housing to meet the District’s needs. Policy CS2 relates to the design of new development and the accompanying text states that design should be appropriate in its context and should improve the character and quality of an area and the way it functions. Policy CS5 also relates to the need to provide the quantity and mix of housing within the District as well as providing affordable homes. Saved Policy R1 of the Local Plan states that development should have a satisfactory relationship with other nearby users/residents, should not be significantly detrimental to amenities enjoyed by the existing and future occupiers and should not be out of character with the surrounding area.

The site is within a medium central village where new housing development is acceptable under Policy CS5. The site is currently in use as a car park and is therefore considered as a Brownfield site where re-development is encouraged over greenfield sites. The principle of development is therefore acceptable.

Design and Layout

Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy relates to the design of new development and Saved Policy R1 of the Local Plan sets out criteria in which all new development should adhere to in respect of character and appearance of the area in which it is to be situated.

There is sufficient space to allow the proposed dwellings with adequate off street parking and rear gardens of sufficient proportions. The dwellings would sit comfortably within the site without appearing cramped or out of proportion with neighbouring development. The drawings indicate the dwellings would be two-storey with brick elevations under a tiled roof with the ridge heights approximately 8.25m. The dwellings would all have a traditional layout with living accommodation on the ground floor and sleeping accommodation on the first floor. The 3 bedroom dwellings would have an internal floor area of approximately 84sqm with the 4 bedroom dwelling slightly larger at 100sqm. The design of the scheme is in-keeping with other residential development within the area and would not appear out of character when viewed from the wider street scene.

Impact on Neighbouring Properties

Policy R1 of the Local Plan requires all new development to not have an unsatisfactory impact on neighbouring residential amenity.

The rear gardens of the properties are approximately 9m deep. The side boundary of no. 9 Winston Avenue runs along the rear of the gardens and there is some potential for overlooking into the rear rooms of no. 9 from the first floor bedrooms of the proposed dwellings (and vice versa). However, there is a mature tree on this boundary (in the garden of no. 9) which screens direct views into the garden and due to the orientation of the new dwellings any mutual overlooking would be oblique and not direct. It is considered therefore that the distance between the new and existing dwellings is sufficient and will not result in significant harm to the residential amenities of no. 9 Winston Avenue. In addition, conditions are imposed to prevent the insertion of new windows, obscure glazing of side windows and the removal of “permitted development” rights for future extensions.

There are no side windows on the first floor side elevation of the property closest to no. 7 Winston Avenue and therefore no overlooking would occur to the rear rooms or garden of this dwelling. Although concerns have been raised about loss of light the new dwelling does not breach the 45 degree site lines from the rear rooms of no. 7 and in this regard it is considered that there would be no significant loss of light to this property.

The overall design, scale and layout of the dwellings will not result in any loss of amenity to existing neighbouring occupiers in terms of privacy, loss of light or overbearing effect.

Highway Considerations

One of the critical considerations during the processing of this application has been the potential impact of the development on the local highway infrastructure and the loss of the car park for use by local residents. Policy T6 of the Local Plan requires all new development to make parking provision on site in accordance with the standards set out within the development plan.

The Local Highways Authority (LHA) originally queried the use and ownership of the front boundary of the site (currently a grass verge). In June they made the following observations:

“On the basis of available records, the boundary of the application site indicated on the submitted plan appears to enclose highway land along its frontage and therefore does not represent an accurate reflection of the availability of land for development.

The allocated parking provision for two of the proposed 3 bedroom plots is currently within the adopted highway.

The LHA advises that an amended plan should be submitted correctly showing the boundary of the development site, or indicate the area of adopted highway proposed to be “stopped up” by a separate application through Section 247 of the Town and Country Planning act 1990.

In addition, the proposal does not appear to provide sufficient parking provision for the proposed four bedroom dwelling plot, in accordance with current design guidance. An amended plan should be submitted showing parking provision as a minimum, on the basis of 3 parking spaces for the four bedroom dwelling and 2 parking spaces for any three bedroom dwelling.”

Amended plans were submitted and the following comments received:

“The amended proposal now affords sufficient parking provision in accordance with current design guidance.

Whilst the amended plans have now delineated the highway boundary, and ensured the required parking is no longer located within the adopted highway, the scheme will require a stopping up order to enable development to take place. This is due to the proposed plantings and boundary treatments that are proposed within the adopted highway, and that the frontages of the proposed dwellings are currently directly abutting the current highway boundary. Proposals should allow for a 0.5 metre margin between the highway boundary and the walls of a proposed dwelling to allow for servicing and opening windows.

Therefore the development will require a stopping up order to extinguish highway rights over the area of land between the footway and the current highway boundary located in front of the proposed dwellings. As the plan delineates the highway boundary, provided the applicant serves notice on the relevant parties the LHA does not object to the development proposal on these grounds.

To enable the development to take place without a stopping up order an alternative scheme would need to be proposed showing the removal of the proposed planting and boundary treatments from land within the highway boundary. In addition, the plot positions would need to be set back 0.5 metres from the current highway boundary. It should be noted that if the area of land between the footway and the front of the proposed dwellings remains within the adopted highway boundary no alterations can be undertaken without separate consent of the Local Highway Authority.

The access to the substation adjacent to plot 3 would appear to block this plots’ vehicular drive access when any servicing of the substation was required. Whilst this is an odd arrangement the likelihood and frequency of such servicing is such that the LHA cannot consider its impact to be severe.”

Further amended plans and information was received and LHA consulted further. The final response as follows;

“The amended proposal has removed proposed development within the current highway boundary, except that which is required for access, and proposes all plots to be set back 0.5 metres from the highway boundary. As such the proposal will no longer require a stopping up order, amending the highway extents, to be made to enable development to be delivered.”

In regard to concerns from local residents in relation to the existing parking issues on Winston Avenue, the CHA made the following comments:

“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.

The LHA is of the understanding the existing site is used by local residents to park vehicles. As previously stipulated it has not been demonstrated that residents currently use the site with the rights to do so. As such it is considered this usage could be restricted by the landowner at any time, and therefore the impact of any additional on-street parking resultant of the site not being available cannot be considered severe by the LHA.

However the LPA may wish to consider if this amenity matter is of sufficient weight to be a material concern should relevant residential access/usage rights be subsequently demonstrated”.

When the properties on Winston Avenue were constructed the application site was utilised in full as a garage court with off road parking for occupants of nearby properties. Concerns have been raised by residents in relation to highways matters, namely the loss of the car park for existing residents. Confirmation has been sought from the applicant as to whether the residents have a legal right to park in the car park. Your officers have been advised by the applicant that no formal rights (either within existing tenancy agreements or Title Deeds to those properties that are privately owned) exist.

Given the thorough assessment of the highway impacts of this development and the clear and unequivocal advice of the Highways Authority, it is considered that there are no robust reasons to refuse this application on highways grounds. In this respect the proposal is considered acceptable with regard to highway safety matters and off street parking provision and accords with the 6c’s Design Guide and the criteria of Policies CS10 of the Core Strategy and Policy T6 of the Local Plan.

Conclusion

The three dimensions of sustainable development have been considered (economic, social and environmental) as set out in the NPPF and the proposal would provide affordable housing contributing to the existing need in Croft.

The principle of developing the site for residential purposes is acceptable and in light of the above considerations, the proposal for three new dwellings is considered to be an appropriate development and accordingly it is recommended that planning permission is granted.

______

17/0721/FUL Registered Date Mr Stubley 19 June 2017

Change of use of land to form extension to Gypsy caravan site to allow the siting of 3 additional touring caravans (resubmission).

Rose Paddock, Hinckley Road, Leicester Forest West

Report Author: Ed Stacey, Planning Officer

Contact Details: Council Offices. Tel: 0116 272 7564

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON:

1. The District Council has not been provided with sufficient evidence to satisfactorily demonstrate the proposed occupants Gypsy status when assessed against the planning tests contained within the Planning Policy For Travellers Sites (2015) and therefore the granting of permission in this instance would be tantamount to allowing unrestricted residential development in the countryside without special justification contrary to Policy CS18 of the Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document 2013.

NOTES TO COMMITTEE

Relevant Planning Policy

Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013)

Policy CS1 – Strategy for Locating New Development Policy CS2 – Design of New Development Policy CS9 – Accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers Policy CS18 – Countryside Policy CS24 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Blaby District Local Plan (BDLP) (1999)

Policy C2 – Countryside

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) (August 2015) The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) (2014)

Other Supporting Documents

Gypsy and Travellers Accommodation Assessment (April 2007) – Study commissioned jointly between all authorities within the Leicester and Leicestershire housing market area.

Leicestershire and Leicester Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment Refresh (May 2013).

Leicester City and Leicestershire Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (May 2017).

Consultation Summary

Blaby District Council, Environmental Health Services – Initially objected due to deficiency in information in relation to foul waste, surface water drainage and water supply. Additional drainage and water supply details have been received and were considered to be acceptable subject to the imposition of a condition relating to surface water drainage.

Blaby District Council, Waste Operations Manager – No response.

Kirby Muxloe Parish Council – No response.

Leicester Forest East Parish Council – No response.

Leicester Forest West Parish Council – No response specifically to this application however the response to application 17/0721/FUL is relevant. They objected to that proposal on the following grounds;

“The site appears too small for twelve caravans.

“The increase in traffic movements on an already congested highway.”

Leicestershire County Council, Ecology Department – No objections. Initial request for surveying nearby pond which was later found to be a historic feature on a map and no longer present.

Leicestershire County Council, Archaeology – No objections.

Leicestershire County Council, Highways – No objections:

“Whilst the County Highway Authority are generally cautious when assessing applications that provide a new or increased use of an access onto an A road it could not be demonstrated that the proposal if permitted would result in a material increase in traffic visiting the site and therefore is unlikely to result in a severe impact to the public highway in accordance with details set out in Paragraph 32 of the NPPF.”

Leicestershire County Council, Minerals – No response.

Leicestershire County Council, Traveller Sites and Liaison Officer – Awaiting comments.

Severn Trent Water – No response.

Thurlaston Parish Council – No response. Third Party Representations

None received

Relevant History

17/0722/VAR Variation of condition 2 of 13/0627/1/PY to allow the siting of 2 additional touring caravans within existing residential Gypsy caravan site (resubmission).

Pending

16/1461/FUL Change of use of land to form extension to Gypsy caravan site to allow the siting of 3 additional touring caravans (Land adjoining to north).

Withdrawn

16/1184/VAR Variation of condition 2 of 13/0627/1/PY to allow the siting of 2 additional touring caravans within existing residential Gypsy caravan site.

Withdrawn

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Proposal

Planning permission is sought to change the use of an existing piece of land covering 0.4 ha to allow an extension to a Gypsy caravan site which lies to the immediate north of the site. It is proposed to site 3 touring caravans on this piece of land and thus enlarge the existing gypsy caravan site known as Rose Paddock.

The application states that Gypsy families will be residing at the site and that some are relatives of the existing occupiers on the site to the north. Additional information and details were requested by Officers in relation to the Gypsy / Traveller status of the applicants. Whilst answers were provided, they did not provide sufficient evidence to satisfactorily demonstrate the applicant’s nor proposed occupants Gypsy status when assessed against the planning tests contained within the Planning Policy for Travellers Sites (2015).

Planning Considerations

Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (February 2013)

The adopted Core Strategy (February 2013) is now part of the Development Plan for the District of Blaby. It is an up-to-date plan that is consistent with National Policy and as such, the policies of the Core Strategy should be given full statutory weight. The following policies are the most relevant to the proposed development:

Policy CS1 – Strategy for Locating New Development

Policy CS1 seeks to focus new development in the most sustainable locations in the district, primarily within and adjoining the Principal Urban Area (PUA) of Leicester and, beyond the PUA, to the more sustainable towns and villages. Leicester Forest West is not located within the PUA of Leicester where most new development should take place.

Policy CS2 - Design of New Development

Policy CS2 seeks to ensure that a high quality environment is achieved in all new development proposals. The design of new development should also be appropriate to its context. Existing hedging and trees screen the site reasonably well along its boundary with Hinckley Road and as such the scheme does not conflict with the aims of Policy CS2.

CS9 – Accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers

Policy CS9 indicates that provision for 81 residential pitches should be provided between 2012 and 2029. 20 permanent pitches should be provided between 2012 – 2017; 23 between 2017 and 2022; 26 between 2022 and 2027; and 12 between 2027 and 2029. Provision should be made through a combination of the development management process (i.e. determining submitted applications as in this current case) and the allocation of sites through an Allocations Development Plan Document, taking into account the most up-to-date Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment. A five year supply of deliverable and developable sites or broad locations for the rest of the plan period will also be identified (Policy CS9).

The Leicester City and Leicestershire Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (May 2017) (GTAA) contains the most up-to-date evidence of need in the District. It provides a robust assessment of current and future need and takes account of the new definition of Travellers for planning purposes. The key change is that those who have ceased to travel permanently will not now fall under the definition of a Traveller for the purposes of assessing accommodation need.

For Blaby, the assessment identifies the following accommodation needs for gypsies and travellers:

2016-21 2021-26 2026-31 2031-36 Gypsies and 0 1 1 1 Travellers meeting the planning definition (Pitches)

In addition, the Assessment identified 83 existing households in the District that it was unable to confirm whether or not these households could be defined as Travellers for planning purposes. These households are considered to be “unknown” but there is the potential for some of these households to increase the need for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation. The Assessment concluded that this need may rise by between 2 and 23 households (23 is the maximum, if all unknown households were to meet the definition of a Traveller. However, the lower number of 2 is based on the consultant’s nationwide experience that only 10% of unknown households meet the definition).

The most recent GTAA indicates that the current supply of unimplemented planning permissions within the District means that there is no current shortfall for Gypsies and Travellers who meet the definition. This is also the case for the “unknown” households.

Policy CS9 also sets out a list of requirements for new sites and extensions to existing Gypsy and Traveller sites. These criteria are to be used to guide land allocations and to provide a basis for decisions on planning applications.

Policy CS18 – Countryside

This Policy indicates that planning permission will not be granted for built development, or other development which would have a significantly adverse effect on the appearance and character of the landscape. Officers consider that the change of use of the paddock with the siting of 3 touring caravans will not significantly impact on the appearance and character of the site or surrounding wider landscape. There is sufficient adequate mature screening to the boundaries of the site by way of mature trees and vegetation which does serve to screen the site significantly from the roadside and wider landscape views. It is considered, on balance, that the proposal is not contrary to Policy CS18 as it would not result in significant harm to the wider character of the landscape.

Policy CS24 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Planning applications that accord with the policies within the Local Plan Core Strategy will be approved without delay unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The application site is not located within or adjoining the PUA which is the most sustainable location for new development in Blaby District and the site is removed from the local facilities and services in Leicester Forest West.

Blaby District Local Plan (BDLP) (1999)

Policy C2 Countryside

This Policy seeks to protect the countryside and makes provision for limited forms of development which does not include development in the form proposed in this application. For the same reasons as set out under the consideration of Policy CS18, your Officers do not consider that this proposal will result in significant visual harm to the wider character of the landscape.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

The national policy framework establishes the key principles for proactively delivering sustainable development through the development plan system and the determination of planning applications. The emphasis is that development plans allow for development (including Gypsy sites) in sustainable locations and that new development is of good design.

The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) (2014)

Provides supporting guidance to the interpretation of the NPPF.

Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) (2015)

The Government’s overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for Travellers, in a way that facilitates the traditional nomadic way of life of Travellers while respecting the interests of the settled community.

In decision taking the Government advises that Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) should consider the following issues, amongst other relevant matters when considering planning applications for Traveller sites:

 the existing level of local provision and need for sites;  the availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation for the applicants;  other personal circumstances of the applicant;  that the locally specific criteria used to guide the allocation of sites in plans or which form the policy where there is no identified need for pitches/plots should be used to assess applications that may come forward on unallocated sites;  that they should determine applications for sites from any travellers and not just those with local connections.

Para. 25 indicates that LPAs should very strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan. LPAs should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community, and avoid placing an undue pressure on the local infrastructure.

Annex 1 to the PPTS defines Gypsies and Travellers as follows:

“For the purposes of this planning policy “Gypsies and Travellers” means:

Persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their family’s or dependants’ educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily, but excluding members of an organised group of travelling showpeople or circus people travelling together as such.”

The PPTS goes on to state that;

In determining planning applications for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation, it is therefore necessary firstly to establish whether accommodation which is sought to be justified on the basis of meeting a specific Gypsy/Traveller need is in fact intended for occupation by bona fide Gypsies and Travellers when measured against the test contained within the PPTS.

Members should also, however, remember that whilst planning applications need to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless there are other material planning considerations which indicate otherwise, a determination as to the planning status of a Gypsy or Traveller does not take away their ethnic status as established under the Equality Act 2010, under which Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are protected against racial discrimination as an ethnic group.

Other Material Considerations

Gypsy/Traveller Status

The definition of “Gypsy and Traveller” in the 2015 PPTS now excludes persons who have ceased to travel permanently and who were included in the previous definition of Gypsy Traveller in the 2012 PPTS.

Thus, as outlined above, in determining whether persons are gypsies and traveller for the purposes of the planning policy, consideration is now required to be given to the following issues amongst other relevant matters: a) whether they previously led a nomadic habit of life; b) the reasons for ceasing their nomadic habit of life; c) whether there is an intention of living a nomadic habit of life in the future, and if so, how soon and in what circumstances.

The Requirement and Supply of Gypsy and Traveller Sites

The latest GTAA (Leicester City and Leicestershire Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment 2017) makes recommendations about the levels of gypsy and traveller provision across Leicester and Leicestershire on a District basis. It provides a robust assessment of current and future need and takes account of the new definition of Travellers for planning purposes. The key change is that those who have ceased to travel permanently will not now fall under the definition of a Traveller for the purposes of assessing accommodation need.

As stated previously, for Blaby, the assessment identifies the following accommodation needs for Gypsies and Travellers:

2016-21 2021-26 2026-31 2031-36 Gypsies and 0 1 1 1 Travellers meeting the planning definition (Pitches)

The most recent GTAA indicates that the current supply of unimplemented planning permissions means that there is no current shortfall for Gypsies and Travellers who meet the definition. This is also the case for the “unknown” households.

Human Rights

The Human Rights Act 1998 has incorporated into English Law, a number of the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the following which is relevant in the determination of this application: Article 8

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with exercise of this right except such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 8(1) seeks to protect, amongst other things, a person’s right to their home. In the case of a residential caravan, the home comprises of the physical caravan itself and the land upon which the caravan is positioned. A refusal of planning permission resulting in the loss of a person’s existing home may, therefore, amount to an interference with this right. Regard should therefore be had to any harm that would be caused by denying any person the opportunity of their home, and any interference with this right must be proportionate to the benefits that would be achieved - proportionality being inherent in the framework and substance of the planning decision making process.

The recommendation set out in relation to this current planning application has had due regard to the proportionality of any interference in the right to a home that would be caused by the refusal of planning permission.

Conclusion

In determining planning applications for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation, it is necessary to firstly establish whether accommodation which is sought to be justified on the basis of meeting a specific Gypsy / Traveller need is in fact intended for occupation by bona fide gypsies and travellers when measured against the test contained within the PPTS.

If an application for planning permission based upon a specific personal (including family) need is deemed not to fall within the PPTS definition, then the application would fall to be determined under the Development Plan and National Planning Policies relating to the general controls over new housing in the countryside and not under Gypsy and Traveller policies contained within the Adopted Core Strategy and PPTS.

The information submitted to date does not establish the gypsy / traveller status of the applicants or proposed occupiers. To this end it is considered that there is an absence of evidence as to the status of the applicant / family members in the context of the definition of Gypsy / Traveller in the PPTS. Accordingly there is currently insufficient evidence to satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposed occupants of the application site are Gypsies or Travellers when assessed against the planning tests, and therefore the granting of planning permission in this instance would be tantamount to allowing unrestricted residential development in the countryside without special justification contrary to Policy CS18 of the Blaby District local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document 2013.

Accordingly and for the above reason the application is recommended for refusal.

______

17/0722/VAR Registered Date Mr Stubley 19 June 2017

Variation of condition 2 of 13/0627/1/PY to allow the siting of 2 additional touring caravans within existing residential Gypsy caravan site (resubmission).

Rose Paddock, Hinckley Road, Leicester Forest West

Report Author: Ed Stacey, Planning Officer

Contact Details: Council Offices. Tel: 0116 272 7564

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON:

NOTES TO COMMITTEE

Relevant Planning Policy

Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013)

Blaby District Local Plan (BDLP) (1999)

Policy C2 – Countryside

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) (August 2015) The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) (2014)

Other Supporting Documents

Gypsy and Travellers Accommodation Assessment (April 2007) – Study commissioned jointly between all authorities within the Leicester and Leicestershire housing market area. Leicestershire and Leicester Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment Refresh (May 2013).

Leicester City and Leicestershire Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (May 2017).

Consultation Summary

Blaby District Council, Environmental Health Services - Initially objected due to deficiency in information in relation to foul waste, surface water drainage and water supply. Additional drainage and water supply details have been received and were considered to be acceptable subject to the imposition of a condition relating to surface water drainage.

Blaby District Council, Waste Operations Manager - No comments.

Kirby Muxloe Parish Council - No response.

Leicester Forest East Parish Council - No response.

Leicester Forest West Parish Council - Objects to the proposal on the following grounds:

“The site appears too small for twelve caravans.

“The increase in traffic movements on an already congested highway.”

Leicestershire County Council, Archaeology - No objections.

Leicestershire County Council, Highways - No response specifically to this application; however the response to application 17/0721/FUL is relevant and raised no objections:

Leicestershire County Council, Minerals - No response.

Leicestershire County Council, Traveller Sites and Liaison Officer – Awaiting comments.

Severn Trent Water - No response.

Thurlaston Parish Council - No response.

Third Party Representations

None received

Relevant Planning History

17/0721/FUL Change of use of land to form extension to gypsy caravan site to allow the siting of 3 additional touring caravans (resubmission).

Pending

16/1184/VAR Variation of condition 2 of 13/0627/1/PY to allow the siting of 2 additional touring caravans within existing residential gypsy caravan site.

Withdrawn

16/1461/VAR Change of use of land to form extension to gypsy caravan site to allow the siting of 3 additional touring caravans

Withdrawn

13/0627/1/PY Use of land as residential gypsy caravan site for a maximum of 1 mobile home and 8 touring caravans.

Approved 07.01.2014

09/0110/1/PX Residential caravan site for gypsy family with 4 caravans (1 pitch), including extension to site area, retention of vehicular access and amenity block.

Approved 08.09.2009

08/0159/1/VYCS Variation of conditions 2 and 4 attached to planning application 05/0450/1/PY to allow 4 caravans to be stationed on the land at any one time for occupation by other family members.

Refused 15.08.2008

05/0450/1/PY Change of use of land to residential gypsy caravan site for one family, including the siting of one static caravan and one touring caravan, provision of new access, hard standing, fencing and landscaping.

Refused 09.08.2005 Allowed on Appeal EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Proposal

Planning permission was allowed on appeal in 2006 (05/0450/1/PY) for use of the land known as Rose Paddock as a residential Gypsy caravan site. Whilst this permission was temporary for 3 years, full permission was granted in 2009 (09/0110/1/PX) for the continued occupation of the site by a Mr & Mrs A Smith and their immediate family with up to 4 caravans. The site was subsequently sold to the current applicant, Mr W Stubley and permission granted for 1 mobile home and 8 touring caravans in 2013 (13/0627/1/PY). Permission is now sought to increase the number of touring caravans by an additional 2 and thus vary condition 2 of planning permission 13/0627/1/PY:

“This permission conveys approval for the siting of 1 mobile home, 8 touring caravans and the retention of one amenity block only within the area outlined in red on the submitted site location plan.”

Condition 1 of this planning permission states that:

“This permission conveys the approval for occupation of the site only by persons identified as Gypsies and Travellers when assessed against the definition contained within Annex 1 of Planning Policy for Travellers Sites (March 2009).”

The application forms do not state the reason they wish condition 2 to be varied. Additional information and details were requested by Officers in relation to the Gypsy/Traveller status of the applicants. Whilst answers were provided, they did not provide sufficient evidence to satisfactorily demonstrate the proposed occupants’ Gypsy status when assessed against the planning tests contained within the Planning Policy for Travellers Sites (2015).

Planning Considerations

Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (February 2013)

The adopted Core Strategy (February 2013) is now part of the Development Plan for the District of Blaby. It is an up-to-date plan that is consistent with National Policy and, as such, the policies of the Core Strategy should be given full statutory weight. The following policies are the most relevant to the proposed development: Policy CS1 – Strategy for Locating New Development

Policy CS2 - Design of New Development

Policy CS2 seeks to ensure that a high quality environment is achieved in all new development proposals. The design of new development should also be appropriate to its context. Existing hedging and trees screen the site well along its boundary with Hinckley Road and as such the scheme does not conflict with the aims of policy CS2.

CS9 – Accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers

2016-21 2021-26 2026-31 2031-36 Gypsies and 0 1 1 1 Travellers meeting the planning definition (Pitches)

Policy CS18 – Countryside

This Policy indicates that planning permission will not be granted for built development, or other development which would have a significantly adverse effect on the appearance and character of the landscape. Officers consider that the intensification of use on the site with the addition of 2 touring caravans will not significantly impact on the appearance and character of the site or surrounding wider landscape. There is sufficient adequate mature screening to the boundaries of the site by way of mature trees and vegetation which does serve to screen the site significantly from the roadside and wider landscape views. It is considered, on balance, that the proposal is not contrary to Policy CS18 as it would not result in significant harm to the wider character of the landscape.

Policy CS24 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Blaby District Local Plan (BDLP) (1999)

Policy C2 Countryside

The National Policy Framework establishes the key principles for proactively delivering sustainable development through the development plan system and the determination of planning applications. The emphasis is that development plans allow for development (including Gypsy sites) in sustainable locations and that new development is of good design.

The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) (2014)

Provides supporting guidance to the interpretation of the NPPF.

Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) (2015)

The Government’s overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for travellers, in a way that facilitates the traditional nomadic way of life of Travellers while respecting the interests of the settled community.

“For the purposes of this planning policy “Gypsies and Travellers” means:

The PPTS goes on to state that;

“In determining whether persons are “Gypsies and Travellers” for the purpose of this planning policy, consideration should be given to the following issues amongst other relevant matters: a) whether they previously led a nomadic habit of life; b) the reasons for ceasing their nomadic habit of life; c) whether there is an intention of living a nomadic habit of life in the future, and if so, how soon and in what circumstances.” In determining planning applications for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation, it is therefore necessary firstly to establish whether accommodation which is sought to be justified on the basis of meeting a specific Gypsy/Traveller need is in fact intended for occupation by bona fide Gypsies and Travellers when measured against the test contained within the PPTS.

Other Material Considerations

Gypsy/Traveller Status

Thus, as outlined above, in determining whether persons are Gypsies and Traveller for the purposes of the planning policy, consideration is now required to be given to the following issues amongst other relevant matters:

a) whether they previously led a nomadic habit of life;

b) the reasons for ceasing their nomadic habit of life;

c) whether there is an intention of living a nomadic habit of life in the future, and if so, how soon and in what circumstances.

The Requirement and Supply of Gypsy and Traveller Sites

The latest GTAA (Leicester City and Leicestershire Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment 2017) makes recommendations about the levels of Gypsy and Traveller provision across Leicester and Leicestershire on a District basis. It provides a robust assessment of current and future need and takes account of the new definition of Travellers for planning purposes. The key change is that those who have ceased to travel permanently will not now fall under the definition of a Traveller for the purposes of assessing accommodation need.

As stated previously, for Blaby, the assessment identifies the following accommodation needs for Gypsies and Travellers:

2016-21 2021-26 2026-31 2031-36 Gypsies and 0 1 1 1 Travellers meeting the planning definition (Pitches)

Human Rights

Article 8

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

Conclusion

In determining planning applications for gypsy and traveller accommodation, it is necessary to firstly establish whether accommodation which is sought to be justified on the basis of meeting a specific Gypsy / Traveller need is in fact intended for occupation by bona fide Gypsies and Travellers when measured against the test contained within the PPTS.

The information submitted to date does not establish the Gypsy / Traveller status of the applicants or proposed occupiers. To this end it is considered that there is an absence of evidence as to the status of the applicant / family members in the context of the definition of Gypsy / Traveller in the PPTS. Accordingly there is currently insufficient evidence to satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposed occupants of the application site are Gypsies or Travellers when assessed against the planning tests, and therefore the granting of planning permission in this instance would be tantamount to allowing unrestricted residential development in the countryside without special justification contrary to Policy CS18 of the Blaby District local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document 2013.

Accordingly and for the above reason the application is recommended for refusal.

______

17/0747/FUL Registered Date Geda Construction/Nottingham 9 June 2017 Community Housing Association

Proposed residential development for 32 dwellings Land at Croft Road, Cosby

Report Author: Jill Sampson, Planning Officer

Contact Details: Council Offices. Tel: 0116 272 7686

RECOMMENDATION: THAT APPLICATION 17/0747/FUL BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANTS ENTERING INTO A SECTION 106 AGREEMENT TO REQUIRE THE DWELLINGS TO REMAIN AS AFFORDABLE UNITS; TO SECURE THE SPECIFIED TENURE SPLIT AND TO ENSURE THAT PREFERENCE IS GIVEN TO THOSE WITH A STRONG LOCAL CONNECTION TO THE VILLAGE OF COSBY and subject to the imposition of the following conditions:

1. Statutory time limit 2. Approved plans 3. Materials 4. Landscaping and boundary treatments scheme to be submitted 5. Landscaping to be carried out 6. Finished floor levels to be submitted, agreed and carried out 7. Permitted development rights removed for extensions, additional curtilage buildings 8. Permitted development rights removed for fencing/boundary treatments 9. Retained trees/hedging to be protected during construction 10. Foul and surface water drainage scheme to be submitted, agreed and carried out 11. Details of surface water management on site during construction phase to be submitted, agreed and carried out 12. Details of long term maintenance of sustainable surface water drainage (SuDS) to be submitted, agreed and carried out 13. Infiltration testing to be carried out and FRA updated to reflect findings 14. Construction traffic management plan to be submitted agreed and carried out 15. Traffic calming scheme to be submitted, agreed and carried out 16. Car parking to be provided as shown on plans prior to first occupation of the dwellings

NOTES TO COMMITTEE

Relevant Planning Policy

Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (February 2013)

Policy CS1 – Strategy for Locating New Development Policy CS2 – Design of New Development Policy CS5 – Housing Distribution Policy CS7 - Affordable Housing Policy CS11 – Infrastructure, Services and Facilities to Support Growth Policy CS12 - Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions Policy CS18 – Countryside Policy CS19 – Bio-diversity and Geo-diversity Policy CS21 - Climate Change Policy CS22 – Flood Risk Management Policy CS24 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Blaby District Local Plan (BDLP) (1999)

Policy C2 – Other Development in the Countryside Policy T3 – Highways Standards Parking and Service Provision Policy T6 – Off Street Parking Provision Policy CE22 – Landscaping Policy CE25 – Crime Prevention

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

The National Policy Framework establishes the key principles for proactively delivering sustainable development through the development plan system and the determination of planning applications. The emphasis is that development plans allow for development in sustainable locations and that new development is of good design.

There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles:

● an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure;

● a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and

● an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.

The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) (2014)

Provides supporting guidance to the interpretation of the NPPF.

Other Supporting Documents

 Blaby District Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions (2010)  Housing Mix and Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2013)  Blaby Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment (2008)

Consultation Summary

Blaby District Council-Environmental Services - Have no objections to the proposal.

Blaby District Council Housing Strategy - Are in support of the application and have provided the following comments:

“The Housing Strategy Team have worked closely with our partners (GEDA, NCHA, and Midlands Rural Housing) in regards to the development. There are a number of key factors which lead us to be fully supportive of the proposed scheme.

Firstly, the lack of affordable housing across the district is clear and an all affordable site will make an important contribution towards addressing this ongoing issue.

Secondly, the Parish of Cosby has historically been notably under supplied with affordable housing, only 7 affordable properties being completed in the last 10 years. As such the housing need in Cosby is one of the highest in the district. This is demonstrated clearly in the Rural Housing Needs Survey which has concluded that 74 households who either live or have a connection to Cosby are in need of affordable housing – to put that into some context this represents the highest number of households of all the rural needs surveys we have commissioned in the district.

Thirdly – as we have been involved from the very early stages the housing mix is a very good representation of the needs in Cosby with in particular good provision for affordable bungalows which are much needed. We are also pleased that there has been the addition of a two bedroom affordable rented bungalow following further consultation with developers.

To conclude – we believe that the potential site is a very important if not vital development for the residents of Cosby, most importantly those that are in need of affordable housing.”

Cosby Parish Council - Provided the following comments:

“At the meeting of Cosby Parish Council held on 13th July 2017, the Members discussed the above application and gave a majority vote to OPPOSE this and made the following observations.

Policy CS7 of the Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document adopted in 2013, states that Cosby is considered to be a suitable location for rural exceptions schemes. However, it does NOT stipulate the acceptable whereabouts of any such schemes within the village. Just because the site is the only one which is currently available (as highlighted in Midlands Rural Housing's report “Working towards meeting the identified local affordable housing need in Cosby”) does NOT mean that it is the RIGHT location for such a development.

Whilst the effect of putting the application through as an exceptional site reduces/removes many of the planning obligations, the fact that this site on Croft Road is simply not a safe location can surely not be overlooked for the safety of both existing and future residents.

On page 8 of MRH's report it states that following the public consultation event held, "It can be seen that the highest number of comments (57) were related to traffic issues; particularly the issue of speeding and congestion on Croft Road. These concerns documented in the feedback forms certainly tally up with the many people that engaged verbally at the event. Traffic and the danger caused by speeding, parking and general flow along Croft Road was certainly the main issue raised, even by those supportive of affordable housing". It is unbelievable that even though these concerns have been acknowledged in the report, there has been a totally unacceptable response submitted to mitigate any of the issues.

It is concerning that in 2016, LCC conducted speed surveys in response to another planning application in the immediate vicinity to this application (Planning Ref No: 2016/0639/01/HCON/REVOBS4). The speed surveys conducted in the 30mph zone recorded 85% Percentile speeds of 50.2mph (Westbound) and 46.9mph (Eastbound). Traffic is simply NOT passing the entrance to this proposed development at an acceptable speed to facilitate the safe entry and egress for residents and visitors.

Additionally, the increase in traffic from the development will only add to the current congestion and speeding problems both entering the village and subsequently within the centre of Cosby.

It is surprising to see that the Design and Access Statement section 2.5 Public Transport is using out of date information regarding accessibility to public transport. This planning application was registered with Blaby District Council on 20 June 2017 yet in March 2017 it had already been announced that Cosby would be losing the X44 Arriva bus service which provided a much needed service to both Lutterworth and Fosse Park, and also a connection to the Narborough Train Station. This has also meant that many existing residents no longer have public transport available to attend the nearest health facilities in Narborough. Potential new residents simply will not have the facilities highlighted in the report available to them.

It is for these reasons that the Members of Cosby Parish Council would urge Blaby District Planners to oppose this application.”

Leicestershire County Council, Archaeology - Have not objected to the proposal.

Leicestershire County Council, Ecology - Have no objections to the proposal.

Leicestershire County Council, Highways - The Highways Authority initially had concerns about the proposal and requested additional information for the following elements relating to; highways safety mitigation/traffic calming; clarification on the inclusion of the field gate to the north of the site; amendments to the surfacing of the internal roads; amendments to the position and layout of the parking bays to make them more legible and the inclusion of cycle storage facilities for each dwelling. This additional information and amendments were submitted and the Highway Authority now has no objections subject to the imposition of conditions. The Highway Authority consider that the residual, cumulative impacts of the development can be mitigated and are not considered severe in accordance with the NPPF.

Leicestershire County Council, Local Lead Flood Authority - Have no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions.

Severn Trent Water - Have not objected subject to conditions.

Third Party Representations

56 Letters of representation have been received, 2 in support of the application and 54 objecting on the following grounds:

 Increase in traffic;  Increase in anti-social behaviour/crime;  Lack of infrastructure/services within Cosby;  Loss of green space/countryside;  Housing numbers in Cosby already met;  Impact on air quality;  Proposed layout not in keeping;  Impact on ecology/wildlife habitat;  Impact on residential amenity;  Poor visibility at access;  Do not want more social housing in Cosby;  Lack of need;  Precedent for more housing;  Loss of views;  Overdevelopment of Cosby.

Relevant History

85/0176/1/OX Residential Development Refused 25/04/85

86/1280/1/OX Residential Development (Outline) Refused 27/11/86 Adjacent site 16/0639/OUT Outline application for Residential Refused Development (max 200 dwellings) 16/11/16 and associated infrastructure Appeal in progress (access to be approved). Inquiry held w/c 4/09/17

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Proposal

This is a full application for the erection of 32 dwellings on the northern side of Croft Road, on agricultural land outside the built up limits of Cosby. The development would consist of 100% affordable housing and the application has been submitted by Geda Construction & Nottingham Community Housing Association.

The proposed dwellings would comprise 3 x1 bedroom bungalows, 2 x 2 bedroom bungalows, 4 x 1 bedroom houses, 16 x 2 bedroom houses and 7 x 3 bedroom houses. The dwellings would be accessed from a single point of access through an existing agricultural access off Croft Road. The scheme proposes 57 car parking spaces within the site. It is proposed that 22 of the dwellings will be for affordable rent, 7 will be shared ownership and 3 will be rent to buy.

Supporting Documents

The following documents have been submitted as part of the planning application:

 Design and Access Statement;  Ecology Report;  Transport Statement;  Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Strategy;  Geophysical (archaeology) Survey;  Local Housing Need & Public Consultation Report;  School Catchment Plan;  Bus Routes Plan.

The applicant has also confirmed their willingness to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to require that the dwellings remain as affordable units and to secure the tenure split specified above.

Planning Considerations

Material Considerations

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) (2013)

The following policies are the most relevant to the proposed development:

Policy CS1 – Strategy for Locating New Development

Policy CS1 seeks to focus new housing development in the most sustainable locations in the district, primarily within and adjoining the Principal Urban Area (PUA) of Leicester and, beyond the PUA, to the more sustainable towns and villages. For clarity Cosby does not lie within the PUA.

Policy CS2 – Design of New Development

Policy CS5 – Housing Distribution

Sets out the classifications for the different settlements to allow future development to be focused in the best and most suitable locations. The policy identifies Cosby as one of the Medium Central Villages in the District along with the settlements of Littlethorpe, Huncote, Croft and Sapcote. Together these villages are required to accommodate a minimum of 815 dwellings over the plan period. As of 1 April 2017, this provision has been exceed by 280 dwellings.

CS7 - Affordable Housing

Policy CS7 aims to optimise the provision of affordable housing within the District.

Policy CS10 - Transport Infrastructure

Policy CS10 indicates that the District Council will seek to reduce the need to travel by private car by locating new development so that people can access services and facilities

Policy CS11 – Infrastructure, Services and Facilities to Support Growth; and Policy CS12 – Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions

Policy CS11 indicates that new developments should be supported by the required physical, social and environment infrastructure at the appropriate time. Policy CS12 seeks to ensure that the requirements for infrastructure, services and facilities arising from any development will be sought in accordance with the Council’s latest Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions SPD. This proposal will provide a development with 100% affordable units. In line with Blaby District Council’s Housing Mix and Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2013), the Council will not be seeking developer contributions in this case. . Policy CS18 – Countryside

Policy CS18 seeks to prevent inappropriate development within the countryside. The Policy states that planning permission will not be granted for built development, or other development which would have a significantly adverse effect on the appearance or character of the landscape. The Policy goes on to state that the need to retain Countryside will be balanced against the need to provide new development (including housing) in the most sustainable locations.

Policy CS19 – Bio-diversity and Geo-diversity

Indicates that important areas of the Districts natural environment, landscape and geology will be protected and enhanced, where appropriate and seeks to maintain and extend natural habitats where appropriate.

Policy CS21 – Climate Change

States that development which mitigates and adapts to climate change will be supported but will seek to protect the District’s important areas of landscape and ecological value. It will seek to minimise the risk of flooding and other hazards to property, infrastructure and people. The use of sustainable forms of transport will be supported.

Policy CS22 – Flood Risk Management

States that the Council will ensure all development minimises vulnerability and provides resilience to flooding, taking into account climate change. Development should be directed to land in Flood Zone 1 and mitigation measures must be in place to reduce the effects of flood water in Flood Zones. Use of SUDS will be required.

Policy CS24 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Planning applications that accord with the policies within the Local Plan Core Strategy will be approved without delay unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Blaby District Local Plan (BDLP) (1999)

Policy C2 - Other Development in the Countryside

The policy indicates that, within countryside, planning permission will not be granted for built development, or other development which would have a significantly adverse effect on the appearance or character of the landscape. The policy does allow for small scale uses and a range of criteria against which any proposals for development will be measured. Accordingly, residential development is not normally considered to be an appropriate use within countryside.

Policy T3 – Highways Standards Parking and Service Provision

Policy T3 states that planning permission will only be granted for development involving a new access, road scheme or improvement if:

• Appropriate facilities for pedestrians and cyclists are provided; and • Safeguards for living and working conditions and the environment are incorporated.

Policy T6 – Off Street Parking Provision

Policy T6 states that new residential development should accord with the adopted car parking standards of the District Council.

Policy CE22 – Landscaping

States that planning permission will only be granted for development which takes into account, and retains where possible existing landscape features. Wherever possible assimilates the development into its local landscape and ecological context and provides a well landscaped and informal edge where development adjoins the countryside. Policy CE25 – Crime Prevention

States that consideration will be given when assessing a proposal to the principles of crime prevention within the design that incorporated into the overall layout of the proposal.

Other Material Planning Considerations

Policy Context and Principle of the Development

The Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) (2013) The Blaby District Local Plan (1999) The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):

The NPPF indicates that proposals which accord with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposals that conflict should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise (Para. 12). The NPPF is a material consideration in determining planning applications.

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (para 14). For decision taking this means, unless material considerations indicate otherwise:

 Approving development that accords with the development plan without delay.  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 NPPF as a whole; or - specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.

Affordable Housing

The NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities should be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing development to reflect local needs, particularly for affordable housing, including through rural exception sites where appropriate.

Accordingly, Policy CS7 (BDCS 2013) states that in order to enable the provision of affordable housing in rural settlements the Council will consider as allocations or as planning applications, proposals for 100% affordable housing on sites which otherwise would not be released for general market housing where there is a demonstrable local need. Cosby, along with the villages of Croft, Elmesthorpe, Huncote, Kilby, Littlethorpe, Sapcote, Sharnford and Thurlaston have been identified as suitable locations for rural exception sites.

The latest Housing Needs Survey of Cosby Parish was carried out by Midlands Rural Housing at the request of Blaby District Council and with the permission of Cosby Parish Council. The survey was carried out in Autumn 2014 and recently updated following a consultation event in February 2017. The latest results from the survey and update demonstrate a need for up to 74 affordable homes for local people to be suitably housed within the community.

Countryside

The application site is within an area designated as Countryside on the Proposals Map of the Blaby District Local Plan (1999), where Policy CS18 (Countryside-BDCS 2013 states that:

“Within areas designated as Countryside, planning permission will not be granted for built development, or other development which would have a significantly adverse effect on the appearance or character of the landscape.”

Notwithstanding the above, the Policy does acknowledge that the detailed boundaries of Countryside will be formally reviewed through the Allocations, Designations and Development Management Development Plan Document (“Delivery DPD”). Whilst taking into account possible future changes to the boundary of the Countryside, the proposal must be considered in light of the Development Plan as it stands at present.

Policy CS18 indicates appropriate uses in the Countryside as being limited small scale employment and leisure development (including dwellings essential for these needs) subject to consideration of their impacts. The list of appropriate uses does not normally include residential development. Residential development would generally be contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS18 and Local Plan (1999) Policy C2.

As indicated above, Policy CS18 indicates that the need to retain Countryside will be balanced against the need to provide new development (including housing) in the most sustainable locations.

Policy C2 (Other Development in the Countryside BDLP 1999) indicates that, within countryside, planning permission will not be granted for built development, or other development which would have a significantly adverse effect on the appearance or character of the landscape. The policy does allow for small scale uses and a range of criteria against which any proposals for development will be measured. Accordingly, large scale residential development is not normally considered to be an appropriate use within countryside. Whilst the wording of Policy C2 has been updated by Policy CS18 it remains a saved policy as the countryside designations within the Proposals Map are still considered to be relevant.

Policy Principle Conclusion

The conflict with the countryside policies contained within the Development Plan have to be weighed against all other material considerations to establish whether the benefits offered are sufficient to outweigh this conflict.

Although the application site is within an area classed as Countryside, the application exclusively proposes affordable housing where an established need has been identified. Accordingly, consideration has been given to Policies CS7, CS18 & C2 alongside National Planning Policy (NPPF 2012). Policy CS7 allows for the principle of exception sites to be granted for affordable housing on land outside of the defined village settlements. The proposed development will provide much needed affordable housing for the village of Cosby, addressing the specifically identified needs of households living or strongly connected to the village. The application therefore complies with and is in accordance with Core Strategy CS7.

Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area

Blaby District Landscape Character Assessment looks at both the landscape character of the district and the settlement character. The site falls within the Blaby, Countesthorpe and Whetstone Fringe which has characteristics including:

 Strong Urban fringes around the settlements;  More rural and characterised by farming land to the south;  Strong linear wooded features;  Small meandering stream corridors;  Parkland characteristics in open space and golf courses close to urban fringes;  Small to medium sized fields with regular field pattern and bounded by well maintained tall hedgerows.

The study concludes with landscape guidelines which for this area include:

 Protecting the character of the open and undeveloped nature of the land within the area. This is important to maintain the distinctiveness between the villages and also to distinguish this part of Blaby District from the suburbs of Leicester to the North.  Enhance woodland cover. This softens urban edges, filter views of infrastructure development and strengthens rural character.  Restore fragmenting hedgerows and improve hedgerow conditions particularly in urban fringe areas.  Conserve existing hedgerow trees and woodland.  Enhance connectivity between woodlands.  Preserve the agricultural practice and management of hedgerows at similar heights and widths.  Preserve mature specimen trees within farmland and encourage selective replacement of trees using appropriate species.

The assessment also looks at the character of the Cosby settlement and recognises the importance of the stream as a significant green corridor through the village and the strong village character. It recommends that these features, along with the gateways into the village, are protected. It also states that expansion to the west of the stream would need to respect the strong linear feature and ensure that the village still appears as a small cluster of development and not become any more prominent in the wider landscape than it is at present.

It is acknowledged that the proposed layout, being a stand alone settlement, with shared courtyard parking and landscaped zones within the site is not in-keeping with the prevailing character of the immediate area where individual dwellings front on to Croft Road. However, the scheme proposes a strong building line to Croft Road, with the retention of the existing hedgerow on this boundary in order to retain its linear form. The retention of existing hedgerows along Croft Road and to the western edge of the site will also provide a degree of landscape screening, retaining the agricultural character of the urban rural fringe of Cosby and respecting the existing gateways into the village.

Although the site is positioned outside of the defined village settlement, it would be bounded by development on its east and south sides. This means that it does not project unduly beyond the existing built form of the settlement established by the south side of Croft Road. It is also not wholly out of keeping with the westward projection of the section of the village to the north, on the opposite side of Victory Park. It is not therefore considered that the development site itself would represent an incongruous and random extension into the countryside.

Given the above, it is considered that the location of the site and its relationship to the existing Cosby built form, the proposed development would accord with Policies CS2 of the Blaby Core Strategy and Policy CE22 of the 1999 Local Plan and would not unduly conflict with the characteristics identified, and aims of the Blaby District Landscape Character Assessment 2008.

Impact on Residential Amenities

Given the scale of the proposal it is considered that the number of existing dwellings that would have their residential amenities directly affected by the development are limited. The scheme adequately demonstrates that there is sufficient space within the site to provide acceptable separation distances between the existing dwellings on Croft Road and the new properties. The most affected dwellings will be no. 69 to the immediate east of the site and nos. 58-64 opposite the proposed vehicular access into the site.

A separation distance of approximately 21 metres is shown between no. 69 Croft Road and the proposed bungalow (plot 7). It is not considered that there would be an adverse impact on residential amenity to the residents of this dwelling in terms of over-bearing, loss pf privacy or loss of light to an extent that would warrant a refusal on these grounds.

The main impact on residential amenities that will arise as a result of the development is likely to be the impact of headlights from vehicles leaving the development on nos. 58-64 Croft Road. The closest element of these properties is sited approximately 24 metres from the junction. The presence of a property opposite a junction or at the apex of a bend in a busy road is not unusual. Whilst this would be a new development accessed off a single access point it is not considered that there any unusual circumstances (such as levels differences) which would exacerbate the impact to a degree that would warrant the refusal of the application on residential amenity grounds.

Croft Road is already a highly trafficked road and it is not considered that the projected increase traffic in created by development would have any unacceptably adverse impacts in terms of noise and vibration.

The scheme does therefore not conflict with the aims of Policy CS2 (BDCS 2013).

Highways Issues

One of the critical considerations during the processing of this application has been the potential impact of the development on highway safety arising from the increase in vehicle movements into and out of the site and through the village. The applicants have submitted detailed transport assessments that have been assessed by Leicestershire County Council as Highway Authority. The Highway Authority provided initial comments in response to the application in July 2017 as follows:

“Background

This is a full planning application to erect 32 dwellings on land to the west of 69 Croft Road in Cosby, Leicestershire. To the west, and north of this development site lies a further development site which was refused planning permission by Blaby District Council Planning Committee for a maximum of 200 dwellings to which a Planning Appeal has been lodged and which is due to be heard at a Planning Inquiry later in 2017. Existing residential housing already lies to the south of Croft Road, opposite the proposed development.

The Highway Authority entered into pre application discussions with the Applicant’s Transport Consultant, WYG earlier in 2017 with reference to the site under determination regarding the scope of the supporting Transport Statement.

Site Access

The development site is proposed to be served by a priority T junction which will take the form of a 4.8 metre width, with 6 metre radii and 2 metre footways either side with 2.4 metres x 160 metres visibility splays in either direction. The site already has an existing agricultural access; it is not clear from the submission whether the proposed access will be in the same location but the Highway Authority would expect that any redundant agricultural access to be permanently closed off and the vehicular crossover reinstated in the interests of highway safety.

Given that this is a full planning application, disappointingly no specific information has been submitted with regards to the gradient and surfacing of the proposed access; for further information please refer to the 6Cs Design Guide1.

1 https://www.leicestershire.gov.uk/environment-and-planning/planning/6cs-design-guide Off-Site Implications

The application has been supported by a WYG Transport Statement dated May 2017 in which it has been identified that the existing speeds on Croft Road are in excess of the 30mph speed limit and as such, the applicant has proposed 2 sets of speed cushions either side of the site access. Whilst these speed cushions are in keeping with a wider scheme of mitigation put forward by the adjacent refused site, this site remains refused and without planning permission and therefore the Highway Authority have to consider the possibility of this current site coming forward in isolation. Therefore at this stage, the Highway Authority consider that the mitigation put forward as shown on Figure 4 of the WYG Transport Statement to be insufficient and needs to be re-evaluated. As a minimum, there should be an improved village gateway feature to the west of the development site. Any proposals to amend the current highway should also be supported by an independent Stage 1 Road Safety Audit.

None of the proposed properties are proposed to be directly accessed from Croft Road itself. Whilst this would involve the loss of an existing hedgerow which is a matter for determination by the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the County Ecologist, the introduction of directly accessible properties along this side of Croft Road may be worth consideration and could inadvertently act as a more natural form of traffic calming. Given that Croft Road has a two way flow in excess of 300 vehicles in the peak hour, any dwellings directly accessible from Croft Road would require turning facilities as per Figure DG22 of the 6Cs Design Guide which if carried forward, will result in changes to plot positions and internal road layout.

Upon review, the Highway Authority are satisfied that in view of the quantum of development, the associated trip generation and traffic impact is acceptable, and no further off site mitigation beyond what has already been identified above is necessary.

Internal Layout

The applicant has indicated that if the application is granted planning permission, they would be offering the internal roads for adoption by the Highway Authority. A preliminary design check has been carried out on the proposed site plan (brp architects drawing number P01 revision B dated 12/5/17) and has identified the following issues:-

 To the north of Plot 1 a timber field gate is shown as part of the proposed boundary treatment. It is assumed therefore that large agricultural vehicles will need to negotiate the internal road network to access said field. Please submit appropriate swept path analyses to demonstrate this. Notwithstanding this, the initial part of the road layout would need to be constructed to an industrial road standard which will affect as a minimum width and radii. For further information please refer to the 6Cs Design Guide;

 The service margin is detailed as being grass topped in a number of locations. LCC do not adopt grass topped service margins unless they meet our minimum requirement of 10m². Neither will grassed areas in isolation be considered for adoption. Therefore please amend the design to install bituminous topped service margins within this development;

 The location of the parking bays to plot 25 could lead to drivers driving over private land and footway to access these bays. Please amend the design to ensure these bays can only be accessed from the parking area;

 Where the internal road layout is to be used by agricultural vehicles, a strengthened footway construction from the bell mouth, and throughout the access road area including the raised table area will be required;

 Block paving will not be acceptable in areas used by Agricultural Vehicles; and,

 Gradients should confirm to the standards set out in the 6Cs Design Guide.

The proposed parking provision has been reviewed and whilst the number of parking spaces appears appropriate for the size of dwellings, it is noted that whilst all of the spaces are allocated to plots, some do not particularly relate well to the associated front door. This can lead to problems with fly parking and should be reconsidered. An example would be the parking for Plot 32 is outside Plot 3 with Plot 3’s parking outside Plot 5.

What is the area of land between the parking for Plot 30 and Plot 31?

Where parking spaces will be bound by permanent structures e.g. walls of houses and fences to ensure said parking spaces are useable and car doors can be opened when in situ it is good practice to widen associated parking spaces. Please review the parking provision associated with Plots 26-29 accordingly.

Transport Sustainability

The footway on the northern side of Croft Road is proposed to be extended west to meet up with the proposed access which is welcomed.

Are there any proposals to provide plots with cycle parking?

The application has been supported by a Travel Plan. Whilst strictly not necessary for the scale of development, the nearest bus stops are located to the east of the development site amongst the various facilities and amenities available in Cosby village. As this development is over 25 dwellings, the developer should provide each dwelling with a Travel Pack and 2 x 6 month bus passes from first occupation to ensure that future residents maximise opportunities for travel by sustainable modes.

The applicants provided the following information on 18th July 2017 in response to the Highways Authority comments above:

“’..reaction to the point regarding vehicular access from Croft Road for the frontage plots is, that this was discussed during our pre-application discussions with Ian Jones and discouraged as a design option. Ian felt that the retention of the hedgerow was important for the rural / edge of village aspect of this particular site and had preference for the developing design to be inset behind the established hedgerow to avoid a highway dominated street scene to Croft Road. This was also to mirror the outline proposals of the Jelson scheme, which also look to retain the hedgerows running alongside Croft Road, mindful that this could yet be approved at appeal.

In addition, local residents and the Parish Council were extremely concerned over any design proposal that had direct access onto Croft Road in addition to the main site access. This was raised as a serious safety concern by a number of residents during a consultation which was held on preliminary designs forming the basis of the submitted proposal.”

An amended site layout (Rev C) was submitted on 25 July to address the Highways Authority issues along with the following comments:

‘’Highways - Internal Layout Comments:

 Omitted grassed service margin to the proposed internal road to be replaced with bituminous topped margin and subject to detailed design.  Amended parking arrangement / courtyard layout for plot 24 & 25 following comment regarding access to plot 25 parking in the previous design.  The area of land between parking for plot 30 & 31 is grass amenity garden area to the front of plot 31.  Spaces between plots 26 & 27, 28 & 29 we understand exceed the 6C’s guidance for parking bound by permanent structures at 6250mm clear width (3125mm wide parking space).

With regards to the comments regarding Off-Site Measures and Site Access, we will look to respond on this point separately as further evaluation and review is required. In the mean time we hope the above response to comments on the Internal Layout provide an acceptable solution to these matters?’’

The final site layout (Rev D) was submitted by the applicant on 22 August and the Highways Authority’s final and revised observations were submitted on 25 August and are as follows:

“Background

Initial highways observations were issued in July 2017 requesting additional information. In response to this request, further information has been received and subject to review, and therefore the following observations are made.

Site Access

The principle of site access only as shown on WYG drawing A102883-35-18-004 is acceptable to the Highway Authority. It is disappointing that no information has been provided with regards to gradient and surfacing as this is a full planning application however the Highway Authority are content for the details to be agreed as part of the Section 38 technical approval process.

Off-Site Implications

As previously advised, the Highway Authority consider the proposed traffic calming to be insufficient, and that a revised scheme led by the applicant should be put forward for consideration which to date has not occurred. That said, the Highway Authority consider on this occasion that it would be more appropriate if a suitably worded condition were attached to any forthcoming planning permission to enable an appropriately designed scheme to be drawn up which may or may not encompass proposals put forward as part of the neighbouring Jelsons planning application site that is presently refused planning permission but is due to go before a Public Inquiry next month.

Internal Layout

A revised site layout has been received and been subject to a design check, which has concluded that the layout as presently on brp architects proposed site plan (drawing number P01 revision D dated 22/8/17) would be considered suitable for adoption subject to receiving the necessary Section 38 technical approval.

It is noted that the timber gate to the north of plots 32 and 1 has remained; the applicant has confirmed that it is necessary to retain a right of access but it is not to be used by large agricultural vehicles. This is acceptable but the applicant should be mindful that the construction depth up until that point will therefore have to be to industrial road specification; an issue which will be picked up at Section 38 technical approval stage subject to planning permission being granted in due course.

Transport Sustainability

The footway on the northern side of Croft Road is proposed to be extended west to meet up with the proposed access which is welcomed.

The addition of cycle parking is also welcomed.

As this development is over 25 dwellings, the developer should provide each dwelling with a Travel Pack and 2 x 6 month bus passes from first occupation to ensure that future residents maximise opportunities for travel by sustainable modes.

Contributions

To comply with Government guidance in the NPPF, the CIL regulations 2011, and the County Council’s Local Transport Plan 3, the following contributions would be required in the interests of encouraging sustainable travel to and from the site, achieving modal shift targets and reducing car use:-

 Travel Packs (one per dwelling) – to inform new residents from first occupation what sustainable travel choices are in the surrounding area (can be supplied by LCC at an average cost of £52.85 per pack;

 6 month bus passes (2 application forms to be included in Travel Packs and funded by the developer); to encourage new residents to use bus services, to establish changes in travel behaviour from first occupation and promote usage of sustainable travel modes other than the car (can be supplied through LCC at an average of £350 per pass (NOTE it is very unlikely that a development would get an 100% take up of passes, 25% is considered to be a high take up rate.)

The Highway Authority also advise that a requirement for details of the routing of construction traffic to be approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority, should be included in a Section 106 legal agreement. During the period of construction, all traffic to and from the site shall use the agreed route at all times unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

Given the thorough assessment of the highway impacts of this development and the clear and unequivocal advice of the Highway Authority, it is considered that there are no robust reasons to refuse this application on Highway grounds.

The Planning Balance and Conclusion

An identified need for affordable housing in Cosby is established and the Policy position is concluded above. In addition, it is considered that the site would not unduly impact on the character and appearance of the area, the amenities of neighbouring properties or the environment. It would meet an identified and demonstrable local need and would assist in maintaining the District’s 5 year supply of housing.

Whilst there would be some impact on the character and appearance of the countryside; the retention of existing hedgerows and the location of the site opposite and to the immediate west of existing built form limits this impact.

For the reasons set out above, it is therefore concluded that that, whilst the proposal would be contrary in principle to Core Strategy Policy CS18 and Local Plan Policy C2, this conflict would be outweighed by other material considerations, namely the significant benefits of affordable housing for Cosby in compliance with Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the S.106 Obligations and Conditions set out above.

______

17/0906/FUL Registered Date Mr S Mattu 30 June 2017

Erection of 6 x four bedroom semi-detached dwellings

Land adjacent to Travelodge, Hinckley Road, LFE

Report Author: Carol Grant, Planning Officer

Contact Details: Council Offices. Tel: 0116 272 7692

RECOMMENDATION APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE IMPOSITION OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS

1. Statutory time condition – 3 years 2. Approved drawings 3. Materials to be agreed in writing 4. Scheme for foul and surface water drainage to be submitted 5. Finished floor levels to be submitted and agreed 6. Landscape scheme to be submitted and agreed 7. Approved landscaping scheme to be implemented 8. Existing trees including TPO trees to be protected during construction 9. Southern boundary hedgerow to be retained 10. Details of boundary fencing to be submitted and agreed 11. No additional windows to be constructed in side elevations 12. First floor windows in side elevations to be obscurely glazed 13. No gates to the vehicular access 14. Southern boundary heights to not exceed 0.6m 15. Drainage to be provided within the site 16. Car parking to be provided in accordance with approved plans 17. Access drive to be hard surfaced 10 metres behind Highway boundary 18. Visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 65 metres at the junction of the access 19. A minimum 2 metre wide footpath to be provided across the site frontage 20. Removal of permitted development rights for extensions and detached buildings

NOTES TO COMMITTEE

Relevant Planning Policies

Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (February 2013)

Policy CS1 – Strategy for Locating New Development Policy CS2 – Design of New Development Policy CS5 – Housing Distribution Policy CS24 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Blaby District Local Plan (BDLP)

Policy R1 – Primarily Residential Area Policy TR6 – Off Street Parking Provision

Consultations

Leicestershire County Council Highways – Has no objections subject to the imposition of highway conditions.

Leicester Forest East Parish Council – Has no observations to make.

Severn Trent Water – No response

Third Party Representations

Following the statutory public consultation, two letters have been received with the following objections:

 The red lined site area does not abut land adjacent to the private road – Forest Rise and therefore who will be carrying out the up-keep of this strip of land?  The company name on the application form is obsolete;  On-going problems with traffic along the A47;  Foresee problems with the new access onto the A47.

Relevant History

03/0839/1/OX Erection of a two storey building to provide Refused 15 two bedroomed flats and 1 one 20/10/2003 bedroomed flat with associated parking and vehicular access (Outline Application)

04/0736/1/OX Residential development to provide 15 two Withdrawn bedroom flats and 1 one bedroom flat with 17/08/2004 associated parking and vehicular access (outline) (revised scheme)

05/0850/1/OX Residential development to provide 15 two Approved bedroomed flats. 1 one bedroomed flat and 16/11/2005 associated parking and vehicular access (Revised Scheme)

06/0877/1/PX Proposed residential development of 15 no. Refused two be and 3 no. one bed apartments over 10/11/2006 3 storey with associated car and cycle Parking and bin storage

07/0814/1/PX Proposed residential development Approved comprising 16 no. two bedroom apartments 30/04/2008 over three storeys with associated car & cycle parking & bin storage (Amended Scheme)

11/0200/1/PY Application for permission to extend the time Withdrawn the time limit for the implementation of 27/03/2014 planning permission 07/0814/1/PX for proposed residential development comprising 16 two bedroom apartments over three storeys with associated car and cycle parking and bin storage (Amended Scheme)

14/0056/1/PX Erection of 6 four bedroom semi detached Approved Dwellings and associated car parking 12/12/2014

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Proposal

This application for full planning permission proposes the erection of 6 four bedroom semi detached dwellings and associated car parking. The design, scale and layout of which have not altered since the previous scheme approved in 2014. The proposed dwellings will be three storey in height measuring approximately 9 metres in total, with both front and rear dormer windows in order to provide rooms within the roof space. All of the proposed dwellings, excluding Unit 1, will have a projecting single storey element at the rear measuring approximately 4.2 metres in height. The semi- detached blocks comprising Units 1, 2, 5 and 6 are to be constructed with brick and tiled roofs, with the central Units 3 and 4 being constructed in brick and render finish with slate tiled roofs. 18 car parking spaces are to be provided within the site with space to turn vehicles.

The application site lies within the built-up area of Leicester Forest East and is bordered by residential properties to the northwest which comprise 2 storey dwellings. In addition, two storey residential properties are also situated to the southwest across Forest Rise and across the A47 Hinckley Road to the south and southeast. To the northeast lies the Travelodge motel and its associated car parking area.

The proposal sits centrally within the application site with the frontage facing onto Hinckley Road with the rear gardens facing the boundary of 44 Forest Rise. The dwellings are indicated to be set back from the highway boundary by a minimum of 18 metres to allow for car parking spaces. Unit 1 is situated approximately 18 metres away from No. 43 Forest Rise, whilst Unit 6 is approximately 12 metres from the corner of the motel building. The distance between the first floor rear windows of the proposal and the boundary with No. 44 Forest Rise is to be approximately 16 metres on all plots.

The application site was previously used as a car park serving the adjacent Travelodge motel; however that use ceased a number of years ago. The land has been subject to numerous planning applications for residential development since 2003 and has been separated from the existing car parking area with temporary fencing. The principle for residential development has been established through the previous granting of planning permissions over the years and most notably by the granting of planning permission for an identical scheme in 2014 (14/0056/1/PX refers).

A new vehicular and pedestrian access is to be created off Hinckley Road with a turning area within the site to allow for vehicles to exit the site in a forward motion.

Planning Considerations

There are a number of themes which run through national guidance as expressed in the National Planning Policy Framework and these are generally in line with local policies expressed through the Development Plan. Key themes in the case of this application are that new development should be sustainable and previously developed land should be developed before greenfield sites come forward.

National Planning Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework

The proposal is located within the built-up area of Leicester Forest East and utilises previously developed land. Consequently, given its location and its former use as a car park, the proposal demonstrates a level of sustainability in accordance with guidance contained in the NPPF.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013)

The adopted Core Strategy (February 2013) is now part of the Development Plan for the district of Blaby and the following policies are relevant to the proposed development:

Policy CS1 – Strategy for Locating New Development

The proposal is located within the PUA of Leicester Forest East which is considered to be a sustainable location for new development which can make use of existing services and infrastructure. Consequently, it is believed that the proposal is in accordance with Policy CS1.

Policy CS2 – Design of New Development

The design, scale and layout of the proposed dwellings have not altered since the 2014 permission. There is a wide variety of styles of dwelling within the vicinity and it is considered that the proposed scheme respects the context of the local area and accords with Policy CS2.

Policy CS5 – Housing Distribution

Policy CS5 aims to focus new development in the most appropriate locations, the District Council seeks to distribute housing by settlement in accordance with the figures contained within the Core Strategy. The site is within Leicester Forest East which forms part of the PUA where sites for housing development are, in principle, considered acceptable.

Policy CS24 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Blaby District Local Plan (1999)

Policy R1 – Residential Development within Primarily Residential Areas

This site is located within the Primary Residential Area of Leicester Forest East as identified on the Proposals Map of the Blaby District Local Plan (1999). It is considered that the location for this proposed residential development is acceptable, in principle, subject to the criteria set out in Policy R1.

Policy T6 – Off Street Parking Provision

Policy T6 states that new residential development should accord with the adopted car parking standards of the District Council. Having regard to this proposal, the scheme would result in the need for 3 off street car parking spaces per dwelling, therefore 18 car parking spaces in total.

This scheme provides 18 parking spaces and as such would accord with the adopted car parking standards of this Council as required by Policy T6.

Material Considerations

In addition to the policy considerations set out above, there are two substantive material considerations that relate to the development of this site, which are:

 Design and Layout;  Highway Considerations;  TPO trees.

Design and Layout

The proposal does not seek to break the general line and conformity established by existing properties along Hinckley Road as the orientation and position of the proposed dwellings within the application site remains consistent with the existing pattern of development within the streetscene.

The spatial separation of the proposal has also been considered in context with neighbouring properties most likely to be affected by the development, namely No’s. 43 and 44 Forest Rise. Unit 1 is situated along the western boundary of the application site, approximately 18 metres away from No. 43 Forest Rise which is a two storey detached dwelling. In addition, the northern boundary of the application site is adjacent to No. 44 Forest Rise, which itself is a two storey semi-detached residential dwelling. All units would be situated approximately 13 metres away from the boundary of No. 44, with the first floor windows located some 16 metres away. Due to the siting of the dwellings and their overall height, it is considered that the proposed development will not result in the development having a detrimental impact to the occupiers of No’s. 43 and 44 Forest Rise in terms of an overbearing impact or loss of light.

Three first floor windows are proposed within the side elevation of Unit 1, serving a bathroom, an en-suite and a bedroom which faces the side elevation of No. 43 Forest Rise. Given that none of these windows act as a principle window and would require some form of privacy in their own right due to the nature of the rooms which they serve, it is proposed to control the means of glazing so that they are obscured with frosted glass. Together with the existing vegetation along the boundary of No. 43, it is considered that these windows will not impact on the privacy and living conditions of the occupiers of No. 43 Forest Rise.

The presence of the dormer windows within the rear elevation of Units 5 and 6 and their relationship with No. 44 Forest Rise has also been considered. The distance between these windows and the boundary of No. 44 is approximately 18 metres. As such, due to this distance, it is considered that there would be no detrimental impact on the privacy and amenity enjoyed by the occupiers of No. 44 Forest Rise.

Highway Considerations

Some concerns have been raised by residents in relation to highways matters, namely the traffic generated by the development and the safety of using the access. Leicestershire County Council Highways have raised no formal objections to this proposal and they are satisfied that the existing access and road network can safely accommodate the traffic that will be generated by this proposal.

As stated previously, the adopted car parking standards of the District Council require only 18 off-street car parking spaces to serve this development. The scheme demonstrates that 18 off-street car parking spaces can be provided, with adequate turning spaces on the site in order for vehicles to leave in a forward manner. Accordingly the scheme complies with the adopted standards of the Council.

The scheme is therefore considered to be acceptable in relation to highway matters.

TPO Trees

The TPO’d tree adjacent to the north-west corner of the site does not fall within the red line site area. However, on the previous permission, conditions were imposed in order for protective measures including a root protection zone during the construction period. It is considered prudent to add similar worded conditions to this permission to ensure continuity of protection for this tree.

Other Matters

Other matters that have been brought up by residents including the name of the applicants business and the red line site boundary are not issues that can be dealt with as part of the planning process. The applicant is the same as the previous application and the LPA would not normally question whether his named company remains trading or not. The red lined site area is the same as the previous application and the applicant has not indicated (with a blue line) as to whether the land adjacent (and fronting Forest Rise) is within his control. As it stands this section of land does not form part of the planning application as it is not included within the red lined site area. Land disputes are not dealt with by the planning department and are a private matter between parties.

Conclusion

There are two key issues in the determination of this planning application, namely the current policy position and any other material considerations.

The policy position is that the site lies within the built-up area of Leicester Forest East where the principle of residential development is acceptable. The proposal will utilise previously developed land and will meet identified housing need for Leicester Forest East as set out in the Core Strategy. The principle of the development is therefore acceptable and accords with adopted policies.

It is considered that the design and layout of the site including the proposed car parking provision is acceptable in relation to the character of the locality and in relation to the residential amenities of adjoining residents.

The three dimensions of sustainable development have been considered (economic, social and environmental) as set out in the NPPF and the proposal would provide housing contributing to the quality and choice of housing in Leicester Forest East.

Accordingly, this application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the proposed conditions.

______

17/1001/OUT Registered Date Mr and Mrs Lynch 19 July 2017

Erection of 3 detached dwellings (Outline with all matters reserved)

3 Gullet Lane, Kirby Muxloe

Report Author: Carol Grant Planning Officer

Contact Details: Council Offices. Tel: 0116 272 7692

RECOMMENDATION: THAT APPLICATION 17/1001/OUT BE REFUSED ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:

1. The proposed development would represent an unsatisfactory form of tandem development, which would have a detrimental impact on the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of adjacent properties in terms of loss of privacy, noise and disturbance. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to the aims of Policy CS2 of the Blaby District Core Strategy (2013) and Saved Policy R1 (ii) and (vii) of the Blaby District Local Plan.

2. The proposed development in the rear garden of No. 3 Gullet Lane would not accord with the prevailing layout of surrounding dwellings with a direct road frontage. The proposal would intrude into an area of rear gardens in a dislocated manner, with little respect for the existing grain and character of the area. The quantum of development proposed (in terms of the number of dwellings and their footprints as shown on the indicative layout plan) would constitute over development of the site. Consequently the proposed development would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the locality contrary to the aims of Policy CS2 of the Blaby District Core Strategy (2013) and Saved Policy R1(iii) of the Blaby District Local Plan (1999).

3. The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed development would not impact on the protected TPO trees on the east and west boundaries and no information has been submitted in relation to the impact the proposed development may have on the trees and their root protection areas both during the construction period and in the long term and may result in both harm to the health of the trees and added pressure to remove them contrary to Policy CS2 of the Blaby District Core Strategy (2013) and Saved Policy CE21 of the Blaby District Local Plan (1999).

NOTES TO COMMITTEE

Relevant Planning Policies

Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013)

Policy CS1 Strategy for Locating New Development Policy CS2 Design of New Development Policy CS24 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Blaby District Local Plan (BDLP) (1999)

Policy R1 Residential Development within Primarily Residential Areas Policy T3 New Highways Schemes Policy T6 Off Street Parking Provision Policy CE21 Existing trees and Woodlands

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012)

Other Material Considerations

Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled “Development Brief for Gullet Lane/Links Road, Kirby Muxloe” was resolved to be adopted at the full council meeting on 18 May 2010. The role of the Development Brief was intended to assist on what types of development would be likely to be acceptable, giving quality and consistency of advice. The Policies discussed within this document remain relevant as part of the Development Plan.

Consultation Summary

Kirby Muxloe Parish Council: No comments received

Leicestershire County Council, Highways: Have no objections as in the view of the County Highway Authority the residual cumulative impacts of the proposed development are not considered severe in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF.

Leicestershire County Council Ecology: Have no objections

Southern Trent Water: No comments received

Third Party Representations

There have been 30 third party representations received. The objections are précised below:

 Additional traffic in Gullet Lane - access insufficient;  Emergency vehicle access will be compromised;  Single garages on plan will not be able to accommodate the number of cars for houses this size;  Character of Gullet Lane eroded;  Development is tandem development which is out of character;  Over development of site;  Threat to wildlife/trees/rural environment;  Residents already experience problems with surface water/drainage and the concreting over of the garden will exacerbate this;  Loss of amenity – overlooking/increased noise / light pollution / overbearing on dwellings within Barns Close;  Covenants on the land restrict building within the garden;  Development will set a precedent;  Layout does not have a road frontage and will be out of character;  Poor design/layout.

Relevant Planning History

None relevant (planning history relates to extensions on the existing dwelling)

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The application has been called in by Councillor Frost on the following grounds:

“The application does not comply with policy R1 of the Local Plan (1999) as it is tandem development.”

The Proposal

The application site lies within the limits of the built up area of Kirby Muxloe which falls within the Principal Urban Area. The site comprises the majority of rear garden of no 3 Gullet Lane which is a large detached dwelling built around 1930. The prevailing area is largely made up of similar substantial dwellings within spacious plots with road frontages with no separate footway provision.

This application seeks outline planning permission for the erection of 3 dwellings. Although outline in nature, an indicative layout suggest that there would be 2 detached dwellings with integral single garages and 1 bungalow with a detached garage. A further double detached garage would be built for the use of the existing dwelling and replace the existing garage which would be demolished to provide vehicular access to the new dwellings.

Planning Considerations

NATIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

The National Policy Framework establishes the key principles for proactively delivering sustainable development through the development plan system and the determination of planning applications. The emphasis is that development plans allow for development of sufficient housing in sustainable locations and that new development is of good design.

It also sets out the planning approach that the Government wishes to see in relation to many aspects of the planning system, including housing delivery, with the golden thread running through the decision making process being the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013)

Policy CS1 – Strategy for Locating New Development

Seeks to focus new housing development in the most sustainable locations in the District, primarily within and adjoining the Principal Urban Area (PUA) of Leicester and, beyond the PUA, to the more sustainable towns and villages. Members should note that Kirby Muxloe is within the PUA where development is directed.

Policy CS2 – Design of New Development

Seeks to ensure that a high quality environment is achieved in all new development proposals, respecting distinctive local character and contributing towards creating places of high architectural and urban design quality. The design of new development should also be appropriate to this context.

Policy CS24 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Blaby District Local Plan (1999)

Policy R1 – Residential Development within Primary Residential Areas

Policy R1 of the Local Plan requires all new development to not have an unsatisfactory impact on neighbouring residential amenity; be significantly out of character or appearance of the area; result in over development; likely to prejudice the possible comprehensive development of the wider area or result in tandem or ribbon development.

Policy T3 – Highways Standards Parking and Service Provision

Policy T3 states that planning permission will only be granted for development involving a new access, road scheme or improvement if:

• Appropriate facilities for pedestrians and cyclists are provided; and • Safeguards for living and working conditions and the environment are incorporated.

Policy T6 – Off Street Parking Provision

Policy T6 states that new residential development should accord with the adopted car parking standards of the District Council.

Policy CE21 Existing Trees and Woodlands

Policy CE21 states that planning permission will not be granted for development which would result in the destruction of trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) unless it can be demonstrated that the need for the proposed development overrides the special amenity of the trees.

Material Considerations

Planning applications must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless there are material considerations which indicate otherwise, and whether those material considerations are of such weight that the adopted policies of the Development Plan should not prevail in relation to any proposal. In addition to the policy considerations set out above, there are substantive material considerations that relate to the development of this site, which are:

 Principle of development;  Impact on residential amenity;  Highway considerations.

Principle of Development

Policy CS1 seeks to focus new housing development in the most sustainable locations in the district, primarily within the Principal Urban Area (PUA) of Leicester and more sustainable towns and villages. Kirby Muxloe is within the PUA.

The site relates to domestic garden land (greenfield land) which is often problematic in terms of impact on neighbours where gardens are developed in isolation rather than comprehensively. In this case, the District Planning Authority take the view that the intensification of use of land for housing where the prevailing character is of undeveloped rear gardens of substantial size is unsustainable given the significant changes to the character and appearance of its setting and the impact such a development would have on the wider area.

The design of the development is at odds with the prevailing traditional character of Gullet Lane. Notwithstanding the relatively modern development of Abbots Close to the west, the majority of Gullet Lane comprises large plots with a road frontage. There are no other tandem type developments within the Lane.

The scheme proposes 3 new dwellings in tandem layout with a bungalow closest to the existing dwelling and two two-storey detached dwellings towards the rear closest to the dwellings within Barns Close. The majority of the site would comprise hard areas including the access road and parking and turning areas with relatively small rear gardens and a sparse soft landscaped area to the front of the two rearmost dwellings. The site therefore appears over developed and cramped and out of context with the larger more verdant character of the immediate area and the wider street scene, thus manifesting in the erosion of its wider, undeveloped character.

The locality is residential in character with a mix of properties varying in design, with frontages to existing roads. The proposed development would not accord with the prevailing layout of surrounding dwellings with a direct road frontage. It would intrude into an area of rear gardens showing little respect for the grain and character of the area, contrary to Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy (2013) and R1 (iii) of the Blaby District Local Plan (1999) and would comprise ‘tandem development’ which R1 (vii) seeks to resist.

The proposed dwellings and surrounding hard landscaped areas would result in the overdevelopment of the site in relation to its surroundings with the scale and mass of the built development in conflict with the surrounding prevailing development thus contrary to Policy CS2 and Policy R1 (iv).

For all the above reasons, it is concluded that the proposed development of the rear garden would be contrary to Policies CS1and CS2 of the Core Strategy (2013) and Saved Policy R1 of the Blaby District Council Local Plan (1999) and therefore unacceptable in principle.

Impact on Residential Amenity

The development would extend behind no. 3 Gullet Lane with a single access point between the west side of the existing dwelling abutting the common boundary with no 5 Gullet lane. Rear gardens, by their very nature, are areas for quiet enjoyment and the potential for vehicles passing and repassing along the entire length of the site is considered unneighbourly for the occupiers of no 1 and no3 Gullet Lane. In this regard it is considered that there would be a significant impact on the residential amenity of these adjacent neighbours contrary to Policy R1.

Furthermore, the existing dwelling at number 3 has two ground floor windows facing the proposed access road and despite the fact that it is the current owner of this property who is making the application, it is considered that the impact of the comings and goings of traffic and pedestrians associated with the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of this property by way of noise and disturbance, contrary to Policy R1 (ii).

Although the application is outline, the indicative layout shows the rear elevations of the northern most properties of the site is between 30-40m from the rear windows of the existing dwelling at no 51. In this regard there appears to be sufficient space separation between the proposed dwellings and the rear windows of the nearest dwellings within Barns Close and, subject to detailed drawings at a later stage, in this regard it is not considered that there would be any significant impact in regard to loss of residential amenity of these existing occupiers.

Highway Considerations

Access to the site is shown via Gullet Lane along the west side of the site including the demolition of the exiting garage. The front boundary of the existing site has a 3m high evergreen hedge denoting the boundary with the highway, there is no footpath on this side of Gullet Lane adjacent to the site frontage. The common boundary between no 3 and no 5 is delineated with a similar height hedge. There have been no technical details of the access submitted and it is not clear how this would be constructed in relation to the adjacent driveway or whether adequate visibility could be achieved. However, County Highways have commented on the proposal, advising that in their opinion the residual cumulative impacts of the development are not considered severe in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF and as such they do not object to the proposal subject to details being in accordance with the 6Cs design guide at Reserved Matters stage.

With regard to off-street parking provision, given the potential and indicated number of bedrooms per dwelling, it is believed that a minimum provision of 8 off-street parking spaces would be required. The submitted site plan does not illustrate the number of off-street car parking spaces as being delivered within the site, and this would need to be demonstrated at Reserved Matters stage.

Impact on Trees

Although the site itself has no trees protected under a TPO, both adjacent gardens (nos. 1 and 5) have trees that are (187/DC (1985) and 188/DC (1989) refers). The TPOS relate to ALL trees on both sites that were in situ at the time of making the Orders. A number of these trees are growing along the side boundaries of the development site. Although no information in relation to the trees was submitted in regard to the continued protection of the trees during and after construction of the proposed scheme, due to the above reasons for refusal, this matter was not actively pursued with the applicant. However, the layout as proposed is likely to compromise the trees to their detriment due to the proposed siting of the dwellings and hard areas and also likely to add pressure for their future removal by potential new occupiers. In this regard it is considered that there is no overriding reason for allowing the proposed scheme which would override the special amenity of the trees and their need for continued protection. Accordingly the proposed development is unacceptable under the provisions of Saved Policy CE21 of the Blaby District Local Plan (1999).

Conclusion

The three dimensions of sustainable development have been considered (economic, social and environmental) as set out in the NPPF and taking into account the adopted Development Plan and all other material considerations, Officers are of the opinion that the proposal represents an unsustainable form of development which pays little regard to the prevailing grain, character and appearance of the general area, results in tandem development along side adjacent rear gardens causing a potential for noise and disturbance with potential to cause significant harm to the health of the adjacent TPO trees both in the short and long term and is therefore contrary to Policies CS1, CS2 and CS24 of the Blaby District Core Strategy 2013 and Policies R1 and CE21 of the Blaby Local Plan 1999 .

Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal for the reasons as detailed previously.

______17/1018/FUL Registered Date Samworth Brothers 3 August 2017

Alterations and extensions to existing industrial unit and relocation/replacement of car parking with associated remodeling/reprofiling of mounding to rear.

Blueberry Foods, Unit B, Oak Spinney Park, Kirby Muxloe

Report Author: Ian Davies, Deputy Development Services Manager

Contact Details: Council Offices. Tel: 0116 272 7688

RECOMMENDATION THAT APPLICATION 17/1018/FUL BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE IMPOSITION OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. Statutory time limit 2. Approved plans 3. Materials as specified 4. Approved landscaping to be carried out 5. “Bat Friendly” lighting scheme to be submitted and implemented that is in accordance with the guidelines set out in the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal 6. Reporting of unexpected contamination 7. Construction Method Statement to be submitted and implemented 8. Any external storage of goods, equipment or materials to be agreed 9. Off street lorry & car parking to be provided prior to use and maintained 10. Identified ecological protection/mitigation works to be undertaken 11. Any roof and wall apertures with associated plant and equipment to be first agreed in writing

NOTES TO COMMITTEE

Relevant Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013)

Policy CS1 – Strategy for Locating New Development Policy CS2 – Design of New Development Policy CS6 – Employment Policy CS19 – Bio-diversity and Geo-diversity. Policy CS24 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Blaby District Local Plan (BDLP) (1999)

Policy E9 – Business and General Industrial Development Policy CE26 – Light Pollution

Consultations

Blaby District Council Economic Development – Has confirmed that this application is supported as the applicants are a strategic food production business that is part of a group including 9 major trading brands operating from key sites based in Leicester and Leicestershire. The proposed extension is essential for their growth plans, to improve productivity and to support the retention of this key major employer within the district.

Blaby District Council, Environmental Health – Has considered the application with regard to noise, odours and drainage and has no objections subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the details of any extraction flues to be first submitted and agreed.

Highways England – Has no objections.

Kirby Muxloe Parish Council – Comments awaited.

Leicester City Council – No comments received.

Leicestershire County Council, Ecology – Has no objections subject to the identified ecological mitigation works being undertaken.

Leicestershire County Council, Highways – No objections subject to the imposition of conditions.

Leicester Forest East Parish Council – Comments awaited.

Third Party Representations

None.

Relevant Planning History

91/0091/1/OX Development of land for Approved employment purposes (B1) March 1993

96/0178/1/VX Development of land for Approved employment purposes (B1) July 1999 Renewal of application 91/0091/1OX

01/1004/1/PX Erection of one industrial unit Approved for food processing, with offices 08/04/02 and car parking.

07/0559/1/PX Erection of one industrial unit Approved for food processing. 24/09/2007

07/1056/1/PXCS Front and side extensions. Approved 16/01/2008

09/0083/1/PY Installation of storage units for Approved dry goods and finished products 25/03/2009 and creation of additional parking area.

14/0267/1/PX Alterations and extensions to Approved industrial unit & replacement car 15/05/2014 parking & remodelling/reprofiling of mounding.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Proposal

This application for full planning permission proposes the erection of extensions and alterations to this existing food production facility. It will provide for a total of 1891 m² of new floorspace, and will comprise a direct expansion to the existing ground floor production space on the northern elevation as well as a small plant room serving the extension in a separate building, relocation of an engineers workshop, removal of portable storage units and small extensions to the basket storage building and refrigeration plant room area on the southern elevation.

The new extensions will house new equipment and production lines to allow an expansion in the range of chilled desserts that the existing site can offer.

The new production extension will require a reduction in external ground levels to the rear and will result in the relocation of the existing car parking to the rear as well as the addition of 25 new parking spaces to meet a current shortfall for the Blueberry Foods site.

Planning Considerations

National Planning Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

The National Planning Policy Framework establishes the key principles for proactively delivering sustainable development through the development plan system and the determination of planning applications. The emphasis is that development plans allow for development in sustainable locations and that new development is of good design.

The NPPF states that planning should proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver business and industrial units.

It suggests that in decision-taking, this 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, to grant permission unless:

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013)

The adopted Core Strategy (February 2013) is now part of the Development Plan for the District of Blaby and the following policies are relevant to the proposed development:

Policy CS1 – Strategy for Locating New Development: Most new development will take place within and adjoining the Principal Urban Area (PUA) of Leicester and encouragement will be given to the use of previously developed land and underused land and buildings. The proposed development is consistent with this policy as the PUA includes Kirby Muxloe/Leicester Forest East.

Policy CS2 - Design of New Development: This policy seeks to ensure that a high quality environment is achieved in all new development proposals, respecting distinctive local character and contributing towards creating places of high architectural and urban design quality. The design of this new development is appropriate to its local context.

Policy CS6 - Employment: This policy seeks to ensure the District has a range of employment opportunities, allowing for growth of existing businesses and for inward investment. The wider Samworth’s development is an established employment site granted permission under 07/0600/1/PX and the expansion of the Blueberry Foods operations will clearly realise strong economic and social benefits.

Policy CS19 – Bio-diversity and Geo-diversity: The strategic objective is to protect the important areas of the District’s natural environment (species and habitats), landscape and geology and to improve biodiversity, wildlife habitats and corridors. Appropriate buffering and mitigation measures should be put in place to avoid / reduce any adverse impacts resulting from the proposal. The submitted ecology survey (which has been assessed by the Leicestershire County Council Ecologist) has identified that no protected species will be directly affected by this development but that biodiversity enhancement measures should be incorporated into the scheme and a specific condition is being proposed to deal with these matters. Accordingly, the aims of Policy CS19 are not offended by this application.

Policy CS24 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development: This reflects the overarching principle of the NPPF that the Government wishes to see in relation to the planning system, with the golden thread running through the decision making process being the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The location of the site on an established employment site within the PUA is considered to be a sustainable location and thus the application proposal therefore accords with Policy CS24.

Blaby District Local Plan (1999)

Policy E9 – Business and General Industrial Development Proposal: Kirby Park Farm, Kirby Muxloe: This policy specifically identifies the Samworth’s site as a primarily employment site where development is acceptable subject to meeting the criteria specified.

Policy CE26 – Light Pollution: Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions governing the lighting scheme, the proposal should not cause nuisance to nearby residents nor create unnecessary light spillage nor ecological concerns for bat roosts/feeding routes etc.

Material Considerations

Planning applications must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless there are material considerations which indicate otherwise and whether those material considerations are of such weight that the adopted policies of the Development Plan should not prevail in relation to any proposal.

In addition to the policy considerations set out above, there are two substantive material considerations that relate to the development of this site, which are:

In addition to the policy considerations set out above, there are substantive material considerations that relate to the development of this site, which are:

 Principle of Development;  Impact on the character of the area.

Principle of Development

The application site is located within an established Business Park and forms part of land granted approval under 07/0600/1/PX, and as such the principle of commercial development on this land is acceptable, and is supported by both the Core Strategy and Saved Policies outlined previously in this report.

The Blaby District Assessment of Key Employment Sites (PACEC September 2016) identifies the application site within this proposal as part of a Key Employment Site that will be afforded protection for mixed use commercial activity and development. The proposed expansion to the applicant’s production capacity is essential for their growth plans; to improve productivity and to support the retention of this key major employer within the district and the proposal therefore complies with Policy CS6 of the Core Strategy.

Impact on Character and Appearance of the Area

Policy CS2 highlights the importance of new development needing to respect distinctive and local character in order to secure a high quality development, and states that:

“Development proposals should demonstrate that they have taken account of local patterns of development, landscape and other features and views and are sympathetic to their surroundings through urban design, landscaping (including tree planting), architecture and architectural detailing.”

The policy makes clear that design should be appropriate in its context and take any available opportunities to improve the character and quality of an area and how it functions.

As an area, the Oak Spinney business park is characterised by more modern two storey commercial and industrial units with a large built footprint. It is noted that the proposed scheme has attempted to replicate the current vernacular of the existing buildings and it is considered that the proposed development has a positive relationship to the existing units both on and adjacent to this site. The size of the proposed building and the topography of the site would not make the development highly visible or cause significant harm to both the landscape and the character of this part of Kirby Muxloe, and as such is in full compliance with the main thrust of Policy CS2.

Conclusion

There are no overriding environmental constraints to prevent this proposed development, which would deliver economic benefits to the District of Blaby and where necessary, mitigation measures will ensure that any impacts are mimimised. No objections have been received from any statutory consultees, notably, and in particular, neither the Highway Authority nor Environmental Health.

The three dimensions of sustainable development have been considered (economic, social and environmental) as set out in the NPPF and taking into account the adopted Development Plan considerations and all other material considerations your Officers are of the opinion that the development proposed will not result in significant harm to the appearance and character of the area or lead to an unsustainable form of development in this established commercial area, contrary to Policies of the adopted Core Strategy (2013) and saved Policies of the Blaby District Local Plan (1999). In addition, the proposal will not result in conditions detrimental to highway safety. As such no reason to withhold permission exists subject to the imposition of conditions outlined in this report.

______

17/1047/FUL Registered Date Mr and Mrs C York 1 August 2017

Erection of one detached bungalow and associated parking, accessed off Sports Road (to include demolition of existing garage)

Land rear of 3 Liberty Road and 65 & 65A Sports Road, Glenfield

Report Author: Jane Toon, Planning Officer

Contact Details: Council Offices Tel: 0116 2727540

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON:

1. The proposed erection of one detached bungalow in the rear garden of No. 3 Liberty Road and at the rear of Nos. 65 & 65A Sports Road would represent a cramped “backland” form of development, accessed by a long vehicular access between existing properties, which would not accord with the prevailing layout of surrounding dwellings with a direct road frontage. Consequently, the proposed development would be out of keeping with the character, grain and appearance of the locality and would be an overdevelopment of the site. It would be likely to be a source of noise and disturbance given the limited manoeuvring space to turn within the site, resulting in increased vehicle movements associated with the proposal, which would be likely to result in increased levels of noise and disturbance and have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of the residents of neighbouring properties. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy CS2 of the Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013) and Policy R1 (iii), (iv), (v) and (vii) of the Blaby District Local Plan (1999).

NOTES TO COMMITTEE

This application has been brought to the Planning Committee at the request of Cllr Breckon under the Members Call-in procedure for the following reason:

“Overbearing development, loss of privacy, rear garden development”.

Policy

National Planning Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013)

Policy CS1 – Strategy for Locating New Development Policy CS2 – Design of New Development Policy CS24 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Blaby District Local Plan (1999)

Policy R1 – Primarily Residential Areas Policy T6 – Off Street Parking

Consultations

Glenfield Parish Council – Objects for the following reasons:

“Development shows no frontage to front of road, which can be considered as tandem development. We suggest a site visit is strongly recommended.”

Leicestershire County Council Highways – Refers to County Highways Standing Advice.

Severn Trent Water – Awaiting comments.

Third Party Representations

8 letters of objection have been received against the proposal. These representations raised the following issues:

 Tandem development;  Overdevelopment of site;  Noise and disturbance;  Invasion of privacy and overlooking;  Loss of light;  Parking provision insufficient;  Increased traffic;  Access inadequate and too tight;  Overbearing.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Proposal

The site is within the built up area of Glenfield, being within a residential area, comprising of bungalows within the immediate area. The site is in the rear garden of an existing bungalow and adjacent to the rear gardens of the surrounding properties.

The proposed detached bungalow would have a footprint of approximately 67.5 sq. m, with an overall roof height of 4.1m, with a rear garden area of approximately 7m in depth. Forecourt parking for two vehicles is shown, which would be accessed via a driveway between the side boundaries of Nos. 63 and 65A Sports Road, which serves as access to the existing garage (to be demolished) belonging to No. 3 Liberty Road.

Planning Considerations

The site is located within the Primarily Residential Area, wherein the erection of new dwellings is acceptable in principle subject to compliance with the specified criteria.

The surrounding area comprises a mix of bungalows varying in design, with frontages to existing roads. It is considered that the proposed erection of one detached bungalow to the rear of No. 3 Liberty Road and Nos. 65 & 65A Sports Road would represent a cramped “backland” form of development, accessed by a long vehicular access between existing properties, which would not accord with the prevailing layout of surrounding dwellings with a direct road frontage. Consequently the proposed development would be out of keeping with the character, grain and appearance of the locality and would be an overdevelopment of the site.

The proposed bungalow would be sited approximately 3m from the shared south boundaries of Nos. 65 and 65A Sports Road, which separates the rear garden areas. No. 5 Liberty Road is a bungalow sited to the south and heavily screened with established vegetation. The low height of the bungalow and separation distances provided limits the impact on neighbouring properties, with regard to loss of privacy and light. However, the proposed use of the existing access off Sports Road, in close proximity to the flank side boundaries of Nos. 63 and 65A Sports Road is noted. It is considered that the limited manoeuvring space to turn within the site would result in increased vehicle movements associated with the proposal which would be likely to result in increased levels of noise and disturbance which would have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of the residents of those properties.

No additional objection is sustained regarding scope for comprehensive development of adjacent land, given the poor location of the access in between Nos. 63 and 65A Sports Road and its marginally sub-standard width at 2.75m. There is off-road parking provision to the front of No. 3 Liberty Road to avoid any displacement of parking.

In light of the above, the proposal is not considered to be acceptable and accordingly it is recommended that planning permission is refused in this case.

______

17/1054/OUT Registered Date Mr and Mrs Price 26 July 2017

Erection of 5 single-storey dwellings (Outline with all matters reserved)

51 Peatling Road, Countesthorpe, Leicestershire, LE8 5AD

Report Author: Carol Grant, Planning Officer

Contact Details: Council Offices. Tel: 0116 272 7642

RECOMMENDATION: THAT APPLICATION 17/1054/OUT BE REFUSED ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:

1. The proposed development is located in an area identified as Countryside in the Blaby District Local Plan (1999). In such areas, there is a presumption against residential development. The District Planning Authority considers that the residential development of this greenfield site would represent an unwarranted intrusion of urban development beyond the existing well defined edge of settlement and would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the landscape and character of the village and thus would be contrary to Policies CS2 and CS18 of the Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013) and saved Policy C2 of the Blaby District Local Plan (1999).

2. The proposal constitutes overdevelopment of the site leading to a cramped and contrived appearance to the detriment of the character and appearance of the locality. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies CS2 and CS18 of the (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013) and Policy C2 of the Blaby District Local Plan (1999) .

3. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that an appropriate and safe vehicular and pedestrian access could be provided to the proposed development, including the provision of adequate visibility splays. If permitted, it would consequently result in an unacceptable form of development which could lead to increased dangers for other highway users including pedestrians. As such, the proposal is contrary to the interests of highway safety contrary to the NPPF.

NOTES TO COMMITTEE

Relevant Planning Policies

Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013)

Policy CS1 Strategy for Locating New Development Policy CS2 Design of New Development Policy CS18 Countryside Policy CS24 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Blaby District Local Plan (BDLP) (1999)

Policy C2 Other Development within the Countryside

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012)

Consultation Summary

Countesthorpe Parish Council: Objects on the following grounds:

“The Parish Council considers five properties to be overdevelopment of the site, with a potential of an additional 10 vehicles egressing onto what is an already dangerous road. We note the comments about the waste storage but the proposals do not take into account a potential 15 extra bins and the fact that the occupants of the proposed premises, which are promoted as retirement properties, may have limited mobility. The emergency services should be consulted on their view of the suitability of access to the site as we consider this to be inadequate.”

Leicestershire County Council, Highways: Has provided an initial response and stated the following:

“The County Highway Authority (CHA) are concerned that the intensification of vehicles at the access with Peatling Road could result in a highway safety issue given the substandard visibility splays at the access. At present the access serves two dwellings with permission for another to be built and the adjacent allotments off an already substandard access in accordance with our design guide the 6C’s Design Guide. The CHA feel that the proposal is over developed and would advise a reduction in dwelling numbers to reduce the proposed intensification of use at the existing access in the interest of highway safety.”

Southern Trent Water: No comments received

Third Party Representations

There have been two third party representations received. These relate mostly to the unsuitability of the access and its position near the end of the highway. One letter also refers to the recent appeal decision (land adjacent to Leicester Road and Foston Road –APP/T2405/W/16/3164730 (16/0843/OUT)) (this is discussed within the main body of this report).

Relevant Planning History

10/0330/1/PX Rear of 53-55 Peatling Road Erection of bungalow Approved

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Proposal

The application site lies outside of the settlement boundary of Countesthorpe in land designated as countryside. It has allotment land to the rear (south) and the west with agricultural land to the east. The land comprises part of the rear garden of no 51 Peatling Road which it is attached to on the north boundary. The site would be accessed via the service road for the allotments which has a black tarmac surface up to the existing entrance of no 51.

This application seeks outline planning permission with all matters reserved, for the erection of 5 single-storey dwellings with an indicative layout showing 2 pairs of semi-detached dwellings and a detached dwelling accessed via the existing track.

The application site lies to the west of land which forms part of the outline planning application 17/0405/OUT for 150 dwellings. This application is still under consideration.

Although the application seeks outline approval (with all other matters reserved), it is stated within the accompanying Design and Access Statement that the outline application is for a residential development of 5 x 2no bedroom bungalows suitable for retired persons. An indicative layout has been submitted.

Planning Considerations

A material consideration is the recent appeal decision for 16/0843/OUT which relates to Land Adjacent to Leicester Road and Foston Road, Countesthorpe for the development of up to 170 dwellings (Use Class C3) and associated works including means of access, with other matters (relating to appearance, landscaping, scale and layout) reserved. The appeal was dismissed on 25 August 2017 with the Inspector making the following comments:

“I find that the Council can demonstrate a five years supply of housing. The development plan policies except for Local Plan policy C2 are up-to-date and in accordance with the Framework. The proposed development would not accord with the development plan as a whole. The material considerations advanced by the appellant are not sufficient to persuade me that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan.”

It is the Council’s position that despite the Inspector considering that policy C2 was out-of-date; it remains within the retained policies of the Local Plan (1999) and is relevant to this application. However, the main thrust of the Inspectors findings were that the Council were able to demonstrate in excess of a 5 year housing supply and as the policies within the Development Plan were found to be up-to-date then planning proposals should be dealt with in according with those policies.

NATIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

The National Policy Framework establishes the key principles for proactively delivering sustainable development through the development plan system and the determination of planning applications. The emphasis is that development plans allow for development of sufficient housing in sustainable locations and that new development is of good design.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013)

Policy CS1 – Strategy for Locating New Development

Seeks to focus new housing development in the most sustainable locations in the District, primarily within and adjoining the Principal Urban Area (PUA) of Leicester and, beyond the PUA, to the more sustainable towns and villages. Members should note that Countesthorpe is not within the PUA and is identified within Core Strategy Policy CS5 as a larger village.

Policy CS2 – Design of New Development

Policy CS18 – Countryside

Seeks to ensure, amongst other things, that within areas designated as Countryside, planning permission will not be granted for built development, or other development which would have a significantly adverse effect on the appearance or character of the landscape.

Blaby District Local Plan (1999)

Policy C2 – Other Development within the Countryside

Indicates that within the area identified as countryside, planning permission will not be granted for built development, or other development which would have a significantly adverse effect on the appearance of character of the landscape.

Policy T6 – Off Street Parking Provision

Indicates that development will only be granted consent if off street parking provision is made in accordance with parking standards.

Material Considerations

In addition to the policy considerations set out above, there are substantive material considerations that relate to the development of this site, which are:

 Principle of development.  Impact on residential amenity  Highway considerations.

Principle of Development

The site falls outside of the Primarily Residential Area of Countesthorpe within land designated as countryside. Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy seeks to resist development within the countryside and states that planning permission will not be granted for built development, or other development which would have a significantly adverse effect on the appearance or character of the Landscape, however the need to retain Countryside will be balanced against the need to provide new development (including housing) in the most sustainable locations. Saved Policy C2 of the Local Plan (1999) adds that planning permission will not be granted for built development which would have a significantly adverse effect on the appearance or character of the landscape.

The application is outline in nature and proposes five single-storey dwellings. There are no detailed design drawings accompanying the application although an indicative layout has been submitted which shows two pairs of semi-detached and one detached dwelling with two car parking spaces per dwelling. A road layout also shows access from the existing track which services the allotments as well as the existing property (no 51).

The proposal would result in a finger of built-form protruding into the countryside where the character of the immediate area is linear with the majority of dwellings fronting the main highway. The applicant states that the site should be considered as previously developed due to a “barn” style building on the land. However, the land is cultivated as a domestic garden and despite the existence of the building (which it is assumed has been subsumed into a use ancillary to the domestic use of the land as a garden), the land, for all intents and purposes is considered greenfield. Residential development is not normally considered an appropriate use within the Countryside and although Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy (2013) does state that the need to retain Countryside will be balanced against the need to provide new development (including housing) in the most sustainable locations, the Council is able to demonstrate a five year housing land with Countesthorpe having met its minimum target for housing provision thus there is no identified need for further housing within the village at this time.

Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy is a design led policy and states that design should be appropriate in its context and should take any opportunities available to improve the character and quality of an area and the way it functions. Development proposals should demonstrate that they have taken account of local patterns of development, landscape and other features and views and are sympathetic to their surroundings through urban design, landscaping (including tree planting), architecture and architectural detailing. Although the application is outline in nature, the description of development indicates that the proposal is for 5 dwellings. The indicative plan shows this layout of five dwellings which appear cramped and contrived within the plot and thus out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area in general.

In this regard the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy CS2 and CS18 of the Core Strategy and Saved Policy C2 of the Local Plan and therefore is unacceptable in principle. Impact on Residential Amenity

Although the application is outline, the northern boundary of the site is approximately 22m from the rear windows of the existing dwelling at no 51. In this regard there appears to be sufficient space separation between the application site and the rear windows of this dwelling and, subject to detailed drawings at a later stage, in this regard it is not considered that there would be any significant impact in regard to loss of residential amenity of existing occupiers.

Highway Considerations

Access does not form part of the outline application. However the existing access to the site forms part of the red lined site plan. At present the access serves two dwellings with permission for another to be built and the adjacent allotments off an already substandard access in accordance with the County Council’s design guide. The indicative drawing shows 2 car parking spaces per dwelling with hard surfaced areas which allow for turning.

The County Highway Authority (CHA) is concerned that the intensification of vehicles at the access with Peatling Road could result in a highway safety issue given the substandard visibility splays at the access.

The CHA feel that the proposal is over developed and advises a reduction in dwelling numbers to reduce the proposed intensification of use at the existing access in the interest of highway safety. However as the principle of the development is considered unacceptable it has not been put to the applicant to reduce the number of dwellings.

The general indicative layout would provide space for 2 vehicles per dwelling and accords with the 6c’s Design Guide and the criteria of Policy T6.

Conclusion

The three dimensions of sustainable development have been considered (economic, social and environmental) as set out in the NPPF and taking into account the adopted Development Plan and all other material considerations Officers are of the opinion that the proposed development will result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape and will result in an unsustainable form of residential development located within the countryside contrary to Policies CS2 and CS18 of the Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013) and Policy C2 of the Blaby District Local Plan (1999).

Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal for the reasons as detailed previously.

______