Item No. 1

Application No: P/10/0501/2

Application Outline Date 10th March 2010 Type: Valid: Applicant: Jelson Ltd Proposal: Site for residential development with associated access (up to 330 dwellings) Location: Land at Halstead Road, Mountsorrel, Leicestershire, Parish: Mountsorrel Ward: Mountsorrel Ward Case Officer: Mr G Smith Tel No: 01509 632521

Description of the Application The application site (15.8 hectares) is located to the north of Halstead Road currently agricultural land of three linked fields, on the western edge of Mountsorrel near the junction with Swithland Lane. The land slopes gently towards the south- west. To the west is the former railway line flanked by mature trees. To the north and north-east is Bond Lane which abuts the Mountsorrel Quarry alongside which runs part of the Leicestershire Round Walk which leaves Mountsorrel towards Charnwood Forrest. Bond Lane is within the Mountsorrel Conservation Area.

The proposal is for outline permission for residential development with access proposed in two positions off Halstead Road. The main access is an additional spur off the round-a-bout at the junction of Halstead Road and Walton Way and a second access road further west nearer to the existing junction with Willow Grove, opposite the Centenary Pastures Local Nature Area(LNR). Although the application does not detail numbers of houses it gives an indicative proposal which illustrates between 330-350 houses, incorporates the following:

o 2.08 hectares of public open space; o 2.21 hectares of structural landscaping; o 0.52 hectares of wetlands including attenuation ponds; o Green infrastructure.

It indicates intentions to develop evenly across the site with landscaped buffer zones along the southern boundary, and to design the layout to trickle out into the countryside on the southern section of the western boundary. Elsewhere it would back on to established belts of mature trees/hedges. It stresses housing would be to a maximum height of 3 storeys with a majority of 2 or 2.5 used to create landmark features along distributor roads. 3 storeys would be limited to central locations. The statement indicates an intention to commence early 2011 providing 40 completions per year until 2018.

Accompanying the application are the following documents:

• An indicative Masterplan layout; 1 • Planning statement; • Design and Access Statement which includes a Build for Life Assessment; • Transport assessment which includes a Travel Plan; • Archaeological Assessments; • Flood Risk assessment; • Environmental Statement that addresses Ecology, Landscape and Visual Character; • A tree assessment; • A ground condition survey; • Noise Assessment. • Heads of terms regarding infrastructure contributions.

The summary of the Environmental Statement concludes the following: 1. The development will not have any impact on the nearby Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI’s Mountsorrel Main Quarry and The Buddon Wood and Swithland Reservoir, and the Barrow Gravel Pitts). It identifies that the nearby Centenary Pastures LNR is likely to experience some additional visitor pressure due to the development and therefore proposes routes within the development for dog walking and recreation, and publicising the importance of the LNR. 2. The proposal is not considered likely to have significant impact on plant or wildlife. No evidence of bats, badgers, newts being present on the site whilst it acknowledges that bats and badgers are known around the wider area and it proposes mitigation measures during and post construction is provided. Most trees and hedgerows are to be retained, especially in the south-eastern corner with additional proposed planting. Additional wetlands should enhance biodiversity. 3. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment of the proposal(following the ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ GLVIA) concludes the following: ƒ That whilst displaying some of the characteristics of the wider Swithland character the area is more influenced by the existing urban area; ƒ the site has a limited visual envelope given the elevated Quarry to the north, housing to the south and tree belt to the west; ƒ The flat nature of the site suggests only the perimeter of the development would be visible with no views across the site; ƒ Buffer areas and landscaping would add soften any perimeter impact; ƒ Overall it provides an opportunity to provide a more appropriate urban edge.

The applicant has provided draft heads of terms regarding the following contributions: • £2,049,792 for all three levels of schooling; • 30% affordable housing of which 75% will be social rented;

2 • Unspecified maintenance sums for the site open spaced to be negotiated with the Borough Council; • Healthcare contributions as requested by the PCT; • £19150 towards libraries; • An acceptance to other reasonably justified contributions. No detailed draft Section 106 or unilateral agreement has been received.

Development Plan Policies and other material considerations

East Midlands Regional Plan 2009 Development Plan Policies and other material considerations East Midlands Regional Plan 2009 Policy 1 sets out the regional core objectives. It requires local planning authorities to amongst other things: • reduce social exclusion, protect and where possible enhance the quality of the environment in urban and rural areas so as to make them safe and attractive places to live and work; • to protect and enhance the natural cultural and historic assets, avoiding significant harm or damage; • to achieve a step change in biodiversity; • secure a reduction in carbon omissions and minimise adverse environmental impacts through the promotion of sustainable design and construction techniques; • locate development so as to reduce the need to travel especially by car; and reduce the impact of climate change from flooding by providing carbon sinks, promoting sustainable drainage and managing flood water.

Policy 2 requires local planning authorities to improve design by the use of design led approaches which will reduce CO2 emissions and provide resilience to future climate change. This includes SUDS, management of flood water, low carbon technologies, and build orientation where appropriate due to the size and type of the development. All urban extensions that require an EIA should achieve the highest levels of sustainability. Land should be used efficiently, and new development located to allow access to local facilities by foot, cycle or public transport. Design should reduce crime, maintain amenity and privacy and benefit quality of life including access to open space.

Policy 3 states that development should be concentrated primarily in and adjoining the Principal Urban Areas, with appropriate development of a lesser scale located in the Sub-Regional Centres. For Charnwood this means focusing development within and adjoining the Principal Urban Area of Leicester and Sub-Regional Centre of Loughborough. It goes on to state that the development needs of other settlements and rural areas should also be provided for and that new development in these areas should contribute to: • Maintaining the distinctive character and vitality of rural communities; • Shortening journeys and facilitating access to jobs and services;

3 • Strengthening rural enterprise and linkages between settlements and their hinterlands; • Respecting the quality of tranquillity, where that is recognised in planning documents. It also states that in assessing the suitability of sites for development priority should be given to making best use of previously developed land and vacant or under-used buildings in urban or other sustainable locations, contributing to the achievement of a regional target of 60% of additional dwellings on previously developed land or through conversions.

Policy 12 supports the continued growth and regeneration of the three main cities. Provision should be made for a mix of house types, balance of jobs and homes, enhancing transport links, employment land to meet indigenous need and encourage new investment, regeneration of deprived areas, and protection and enhancement of green infrastructure. Outside the 3 cities, employment and housing should be within and adjoining settlements and in scale.

Policy 13 sets out the Regional Housing Provision for each district 2006-26. Charnwood's annual apportionment is 790 dwellings per year, totalling 15,800.

Policy 14 sets the regional minimum target for affordable housing. Within Leicestershire this figure is 26,500 during the plan period 2006-26. Policy 26 states that sustainable development should ensure the protection, appropriate management and enhancement of the region’s natural and cultural assets. Local authorities and other bodies should apply the promotion of the highest level of protection for the region’s nationally and internationally designated natural and cultural assets. Damage to natural or cultural assets should be avoided wherever and as far as possible, recognising that such assets are usually irreplaceable. Unavoidable damage which cannot be mitigated should be compensated for.

Policy 31: Priorities for the Management and Enhancement of the Region’s Landscape identifies the Charnwood Forest as a region landscape priority. It states that the Region’s natural and heritage landscapes should be protected and enhanced by the promotion of initiatives to protect and enhance the particular character of the Charnwood Forest. Three Cities SRS 5: Green Infrastructure and National Forest identifies the proposal for a Charnwood Forest Regional Park as a strategic priority. This policy has been developed further through a partnership of the local authorities which cover the Charnwood Forest area and a Vision Statement prepared. The vision statement highlights that growth in nearby urban areas will need to be appropriately managed and may provide opportunities to enhance parts of the area and improve green infrastructure links. It points to the need for Local Development Frameworks to manage appropriate types of development and ensure that development is of high quality design in keeping with its landscape and settlement setting within the Park.

Policy 45 seeks to reduce the demand to travel to sites by way of the motor car and to encourage the use of public transport, walking and cycling to achieve a progressive reduction over time in the rate of traffic growth.

4 Policy Three Cities SRS 3 states that Charnwood is required to make provision for 790 dwellings per annum, of which at least 330 should be within or adjoining the Leicester PUA, including sustainable urban extensions as necessary. Development in the remainder of the District will be located mainly at Loughborough, including sustainable urban extensions as necessary.

6Cs Growth Point Draft Green Infrastructure Strategy

The Three Cities (Derby, Leicester and Nottingham), and the Three Counties (Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire) – also known as the ‘6Cs’ - Growth Point has been successful is bidding for increased levels of funding from the Government for necessary infrastructure to support anticipated higher levels of growth, including Green Infrastructure. The 6Cs Green Infrastructure Strategy sets out a proposed overarching strategic framework for planning, investment and delivery by stakeholders working across the environmental, social and economic sectors. The purpose of the Strategy is to focus attention or priority on land that needs to be safeguarded, managed or secured in positive ways to create a multi-functional network of green spaces and assets for which investment can deliver the greatest range of benefits.

The Strategy was commissioned by the 6Cs Strategic Green Infrastructure Project Board, a partnership of local authorities and environmental agencies with responsibility for overseeing the planning and delivery of green infrastructure across the 6Cs Growth Point.

The strategy identifies the National Forest (including Charnwood Forest), River Soar Strategic River Corridor and the River Wreake Strategic River corridor as sub- regional corridors, the backbone of the strategic green infrastructure network. Charnwood Forest is also identified as a City Scale Green Infrastructure Corridor. City Scale Corridors link up with the Sub Regional GI Corridors to create the overall Strategic GI Networks in and around the Three Cities. The strategy sets out a long term vision ‘to protect, enhance and extend a planned multifunctional network of greenspaces, natural features and interconnected green links in and around the three cities of Derby, Leicester and Nottingham, connecting with their surrounding towns and villages as part of the sustainable growth of the sub-region’

Borough of Charnwood Local Plan (adopted 12th January 2004) (saved policies)

Policy ST/1-Overall Strategy for Charnwood- Seeks to set the overall framework for development, in the Borough, ensuring that needs of the community are met, and that features of the natural and built environment are protected and safeguarded where necessary. The policy aims to improve the quality of development through the layout of sites and trying to achieve sustainable development in a co-ordinated, comprehensive and consistent basis. It also states the following: In identifying development needs of the Borough measures will be taken to amongst other things: v) identify areas of Green Wedge and other open land necessary to preserve the separate identity of settlements and to ensure that as urban development takes 5 place, undeveloped links to the countryside extending outwards from the urban areas are retained;

Policy ST/2- Limits to Development. This policy seeks to restrict development to within the existing Limits to Development boundaries of existing settlements to ensure that development needs can be met without harm to the countryside or other rural interests.

Policy ST/3-Infrastructure- seeks to ensure that developers provide financial contributions for things which have an impact on related infrastructure or community facilities. However, it should be noted that further to recent legislative reform strengthening the position in Circular 05/2005, Section 106 obligations can only be pursued where their requirements are: 1. Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, 2. Directly related to the development, 3. Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Policy EV/1- Design- Seeks to ensure a high standard of design for developments which respect the character of the area, nearby occupiers, and is compatible in mass, scale, layout, whilst using landforms and other natural features. It should meet the needs of all groups and create safe places for people.

EV/17- Safety in New Development. Aims to secure improvements to ensure public safety in the design and layout of new development.

Policy EV/20- Landscaping in New Development. Seeks to ensure that a high standard of landscaping is provided on all new development sites, particularly where these are in areas adjacent to countryside, or principle transport corridors.

Policy EV/39- Development and Pollution. Planning permission will not be granted for new development which: i. because of its nature or operation, would be likely to result in a serious risk to the health of general amenities of nearby residents, the public generally or the natural environment; or ii. Involves residential or other development sensitive to pollution which would be likely to suffer poor environmental amenity due to excessive noise, disturbance, dust, smoke or other polluting effects arising from existing development nearby. Planning permission will only be granted in these instances where appropriate measures to overcome the potential pollution problems are proposed and implemented to the satisfaction of the local planning authority.

Policy EV/43- Percent for Art- seeks to ensure that there is either a contribution in lieu, or art is incorporated into the design of the development.

Policy H/5- Affordable Housing on Unallocated Sites- seeks to secure the provision of the appropriate amount of affordable housing with a range of house types on windfall sites.

6 Policy H/16- Design and Layout of New Housing Developments- seeks to ensure that proposed housing developments are planned to ensure that high standards of design are achieved in terms of scale, character of the area, privacy, landscaping and creating a safe and secure environment.

Policy CT/1- General Principles for Areas of Countryside, Green Wedge and Local Separation. Sets out the criteria against which to assess proposals for development within a Countryside location. This is limited to small scale developments and re-use and adaptation of rural buildings for uses suitable in scale and nature. The exceptions are agricultural or forestry proposals, facilitation of the rural economy, improving recreational facilities, and implementing strategically important schemes. The submitted proposal has to be assessed against the above criteria.

Policy CT/2 -Development in the Countryside. Development acceptable in principle should not harm the character and appearance of the countryside and safeguard its amenity interests.

Policy CT/7 – Within the designated Areas of Particularly Attractive Countryside planning permission will be granted for uses where the proposal would not detract from the essentially undeveloped rural character of the landscape, damage natural features and landform or diminish the visual amenities afforded by important viewpoints by reason of: i. the introduction of prominent, visually obtrusive or incongruous elements by reason of poor siting, design construction and landscaping; or ii. the use of materials or designs incompatible with the traditional vernacular or otherwise unsuitable due to their colour, or reflective qualities; iii. the removal of traditional buildings and structures, or particular elements of them, or other landscape features which contribute to the special character and appearance of the locality. Where development is acceptable in principle it will be expected to maintain or enhance the character of the landscape.

Policy TR/1- Specified Road Network. Seeks to ensure that development is not granted which results in serious congestion on the main traffic routes through the Borough, or otherwise prejudice the ability to provide for safe and efficient movement of traffic.

Policy TR/6-Traffic Generation from New Development. This seeks to restrict development which through its impact results in an unsatisfactory operation of the highway system, or has a significant impact on the environment, unless measures are proposed to overcome any harmful effects. In all cases measures should help to reduce car dependence and usage.

Policy TR/16- Traffic Calming. This seeks to ensure a development includes measures to reduce traffic speeds, to assist in a higher quality of life and safer living and working environments, and to address traffic congestion, creating safer conditions for cyclists and pedestrians, and access to public transport.

7 Policy TR/18- Parking in New Development. – this seeks to set the maximum standards by which development should provide for off street car parking dependent on floorspace or dwelling numbers.

RT/3- Play Spaces in New Development-seeks to ensure the provision of play space in development primarily for family occupation and sets out standards required to achieve this. Also allows for seeking commuted sum payments of developments less than 10 dwellings in areas where there would be, or is a deficiency in play space in an area.

RT/4- Youth/Adult Play in New Development seeks to ensure the provision of youth/adult play provision on developments of more than 10 units. Where this is not feasible on the site, then a commuted sum can be negotiated.

RT/5- This policy requires the provision of 38sqm per 10 dwellings for additional amenity open space on all developments over 10 dwellings.

RT/12- Structural Open Space Provision in New Development. This policy sets out a requirement for the provision of the above to ensure that development is compatible in the wider landscape.

• Other Policies

Minerals Policy Statement 1- provides a safeguarding policy for protecting minerals.

Leicestershire Minerals Core Strategy and Development Control Policies (adopted October 2009) Policy MSC10 - To safeguard deposits of sand gravel and limestone amongst other things, that are of current or future economic importance through the identification of Mineral Safeguarding Areas in the Site Allocations Document;

Policy MDC8 Planning Permission will not be granted for any form of development within a Minerals Safeguarding Area that is incompatible with safeguarding the mineral. It lists criteria of exempt developments.

Leading in Design Supplementary Planning Document February 2006 Encourages and provides guidance on achieving high quality design in new development. It indicates that the Council will approach its judgements on the design of new development against the following main principles. • Places for People – Successful developments contribute to the creation of distinctive places that provide a choice of housing and complementary facilities and activities nearby. Good design promotes diversity and choice through a mix of compatible developments and uses that work together to create viable places that respond to local needs. • Accessible Places – Successful developments are easy to get to and move through, with short, direct public routes overlooked by frontages.

8 • Safe Places – Successful developments are safe and attractive with a clear division between public and private space. Good design promotes the continuity of street frontages and the enclosure of space by development which clearly defines public and private areas. • Sustainable Places – Successful developments are able to adapt to improve their long-term viability and are built to cause the least possible harm to the environment. It also incorporates resource efficiency and renewable energy measures to take into account the long-term impact of a development. • Distinctive Places – Successful developments respond to their context and build on the features that make an area special.

Appendix 4 includes the following: Separation distance, to protect privacy, between rear building elevations containing main habitable room windows (see footnote for definition): • 21m for 2-storey dwellings; • 27.5m where main habitable room windows above ground floor level would overlook existing conventional dwellings; • 7.5m for 3-storey dwellings and above. Where elevations containing main ground floor habitable room windows would face windowless flank walls, over-dominance will be avoided by: • 9.5m minimum distance between the two elevations where the flank wall is single-storey; • 12.5m for 2-storeyflank walls; and • 15.5m for 3-storey flank walls.

Supplementary Planning Document Section 106 Developer Contributions. This document considers the infrastructure requirements necessary for a development.

Local Development Framework

Settlement Hierarchy Charnwood Borough Council is in the process of preparing a Core Strategy for the Borough. In October 2008 the Council published the Core Strategy Further Consultation document and this set out a proposed approach to development in rural areas. This consultation document identified Mountsorrel as a Service Centre based on the good range of service and facilities and public transport available in the village.

Whilst it is important to emphasise that the Core Strategy has limited weight at this stage in its preparation, the evidence base used to inform the preparation of the consultation document is a material consideration.

Five Year Supply The Council published an Assessment of Five Year Supply in January 2010 which identifies that the Borough has a 3.5 year supply of deliverable housing sites when measured against the adopted Regional Plan housing figure of 790 dwellings per year. This assessment takes account of completions from 1st April 2009, permissions and

9 feedback from a consultation with developers of permitted sites about their intensions to build.

Green Infrastructure

The Charnwood Forest Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment (October 2008) was commissioned by Leicestershire County Council to inform the Local Development Frameworks for the Charnwood Forest Area following its identification as a landscape priority in the Regional Plan. The assessment identifies this site as falling within the Swithland Landscape Character Area. This area includes the landscape between the Rothley Brook to the south east and Bradgate Park and Beacon Hill to the west. It is characterised by a rural landscape of gently rolling farmland, woodland blocks and dense hedgerows often with mature hedgerow trees. Key features include the landform from Buddon Wood and Mountsorrel Quarry, Swithland Reservoir and prominent woodland cover along ridgelines and high ground. The assessment for this area identifies the Leicestershire Round footpath, which runs along the northern boundary of the site, as a significant element of green infrastructure passing through the centre of the character area connecting Bradgate Country Park, Swithland Reservoir and the River Soar.

Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing

Paragraph 71 states that where Local Planning Authorities cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites, for example, where Local Development Documents have not been reviewed to take into account policies in this PPS, or there is less than five years supply of deliverable sites, they should consider favourably planning applications for housing, having regard to the policies in PPS3 including the considerations in paragraph 69. Paragraph 69 states that in deciding planning applications, Local Planning Authorities should have regard to: • Achieving high quality housing. • Ensuring developments achieve a good mix of housing reflecting the accommodation requirements of specific groups, in particular, families and older people. • The suitability of a site for housing, including its environmental sustainability. • Using land effectively and efficiently. • Ensuring the proposed development is in line with planning for housing objectives, reflecting the need and demand for housing in, and the spatial vision for, the area and does not undermine wider policy objectives eg addressing housing market renewal issues. Paragraph 72 states that Local Planning Authorities should not refuse applications solely on the grounds of prematurity.

Paragraph 54 states that to be considered deliverable, sites should, at the point of adoption of the relevant Local Development Document: Be available, suitable and achievable.

10 Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth Policy EC6.2 (b)states that in rural areas, local planning authorities should identify local service centres (which might be a country town, a single large village or a group of villages) and locate most new development in or on the edge of existing settlements where employment, housing (including affordable housing), services and other facilities can be provided close together.

PPS 7- Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Sets out the key principles of raising the quality of life in rural areas, and to encourage a more sustainable use of land, and to diversify and promote growth in rural areas. Development should be focused in or next to existing towns and villages. Decisions on development proposals should be based on sustainable development principles, ensuring an integrated approach to the consideration of: • social inclusion, recognising the needs of everyone; • effective protection and enhancement of the environment; • prudent use of natural resources; and • Maintaining high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.

Accessibility should be a key consideration in all development decisions. Most developments which are likely to generate large numbers of trips should be located in or next to towns or other service centres that are accessible by public transport, walking and cycling.

New building development in the open countryside away from existing settlements, or outside areas allocated for development in development plans, should be strictly controlled; the Government’s overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all. Priority should be given to the re-use of previously-developed (‘brownfield’) sites in preference to the development of greenfield sites, except in cases where there are no brownfield sites available, or these brownfield sites perform so poorly in terms of sustainability considerations (for example, in their remoteness from settlements and services) in comparison with greenfield sites.

PPS 9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation) sets out the statutory framework to safeguard natural heritage. The Habitats Directive is European legislation which requires member states to take measures to maintain and restore natural habitats. The PPS emphasises that the national wildlife heritage is not confined to designated sites. It is stated that statutory and non-statutory sites, together with countryside features which provide wildlife corridors, links or stepping stones from one habitat to another, all help to form a network necessary to ensure the maintenance of the current range and diversity of flora fauna and land form features and the survival of important species.

PPG 13- Transport- For new developments, PPG13 suggests that maximum levels of car parking provision should be set for broad land-use classes and locations, but it is unlikely to be appropriate in future for development to be provided with as many car parking spaces as there are employees. In this way, reduced levels of parking will

11 act as a demand management tool as part of package of measures designed to influence and encourage more sustainable travel behaviour. Housing development should be located wherever possible so as to provide a choice of means of travel to other facilities and where there is a range of transport provision. The overall strategy should be to avoid significant incremental expansion of housing in villages where there is a likelihood of predominantly car commuting to urban centres and where travel needs are unlikely to be well served by public transport.

PPS5 –Archaeology. Sets out the guiding principles on how to preserve archaeological remains under the development plan and control systems.

PPS 25 Development and Flood Risk- this guidance aims to ensure that flood risk is taken into account to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding. Individual land owners are responsible for managing drainage on their land and prevent adverse impacts on neighbouring land. Flood Risk Assessments should be submitted as part of the application process, where necessary, and be proportionate to the risk and consider the risk of flooding to the development as well as the risk to flooding from the development. It sets criteria for assessing appropriate development in different areas at flood risk. In this regard, new development should be steered towards land in zones 1 and 2. Circular 05/2005 states that a requirement through a planning obligation for the provision of an element of affordable housing in residential or mixed-use developments with a residential component should be in line with Local Development Framework policies on the creation of mixed communities.

CABE. Building for Life 2008. This guide is a tool to help assess proposed residential developments in relation to design, layout, sustainability criteria, adaptability, and effect of existing local character and reduction of crime, amongst other things.

Safer Places- The Planning System and Crime Prevention (ODPM 2004). This is a companion guide to PPS1, designed to encourage greater attention to the principles of crime prevention, and to the attributes of safer places. It is concerned with the promotion of safe, sustainable and attractive environments to meet wider planning objectives.

Ministerial advice. On 27th May 2010 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP, wrote to Local Planning Authorities stating the following:

‘I am writing to you today to highlight our commitment in the coalition agreements where we very clearly set out our intention to rapidly abolish Regional Strategies and return decision making powers on housing and planning to local councils. Consequently, decisions on housing supply will rest with Local Planning Authorities without the framework of regional numbers and plans.

12 I will make a formal announcement on this matter soon. However, I expect Local Planning Authorities and the Planning Inspectorate to have regard to this letter as a material planning consideration in any decisions they are currently taking’.

Other Material Considerations Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that with respect to any buildings or land within a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a duty on the local planning authority to do all that it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder in its area. The potential impact on community safety is therefore a material consideration in the determination of this planning application.

Relevant Planning History None

Responses of Statutory Consultees

County Council as the Highway Authority objects on the following grounds:

1.The proposed accesses are shown in sketch form only and as the proposed accesses are to be considered for this application there is insufficient detail to enable an assessment to be made of the adequacy of the access junctions. The sketch drawings do not show any footways at the junctions and also on Halstead Road along the frontage of the proposed development. The applicant has therefore failed to demonstrate that appropriate and safe vehicular and pedestrian accesses would be provided to the proposed development and the proposal if permitted would consequently result in an unacceptable form of development and could lead to danger for road users.

2. The existing highway network is inadequate to cater for the traffic generated by the proposed development.

(i) The following junctions have substandard visibility:

Halstead Road/Rothley Road; Halstead Road/Swithland Lane; Linkfield Road/Rothley Road/Mountsorrel Lane.

(ii) The existing vehicular speeds along Halstead Road between Swithland Lane and Rothley Road are very high in relation to the existing speed limit and the proposed development would exacerbate the situation.

(iii) Bond Lane is relatively narrow in width; has relatively poor alignment and is therefore unsuitable to cater for the traffic generated by the proposed development. Furthermore it is intended for Bond Lane to be used for 13 pedestrians and cyclists. Bond Lane is unsuitable to cater for the increase in pedestrians and cyclists in addition to vehicles. The proposal would pose a hazard to road users.

The proposal if permitted would consequently result in an unacceptable form of development and could lead to danger for road users.

The highway authority therefore has outstanding concerns regarding the proposed asccess details; considerations regarding Trip Generation assessment methods; the impact on the existing network and in particular junctions.

Natural England welcomes the fact that there will be at least 4.81hectares of multifunctional green infrastructure, with 2.08 hectares of that designated as public open space. The proposal promises to deliver high quality new recreational and green spaces linked to adjacent areas through the provision of safe walking and cycling routes.

It does not object to this proposal on landscape grounds because it does not fall within a protected landscape or within a landscape that can be considered as being sensitive

Natural England does not object to this proposal on ecology grounds because, providing the mitigation measures are implemented as described, and subject to the conditions below, the proposal does not present a threat to protected species.

It requests conditions be attached.

County Council – Developer Contributions - Based on the indicative scheme submitted the County Council request contributions towards the following: • Libraries totalling £19,150; • Education, o Mountsorrel Christ Church & St Peter CE Primary School £911,856 o Barrow Upon Soar Humphrey Perkins High School £561,432 o Quorn Rawlins Community College £576,504

After issues raised by the community and the Headteacher regarding the impact to the nearest primary school the County Council as Education Authority responded regarding the following:

‘The actual number of primary pupil places will generate around 76 (this could potentially equate to 11 children per year group). The contribution is calculated on 314 houses with 2 (plus) bedrooms, hence the value of the contribution and the pupils are expected pro-rata as and when the developments are completed. The one bedroom properties will not generate education contributions. Should the developer choose to alter the configuration of properties then the allocation requested will alter to reflect this. The Christ Church & St Peter's Primary School has an admission number of 58 giving a total pupil capacity of 406 pupils, and taking into account existing housing development 14 (excluding Halstead Road), the school is expected to be full for the next 5 years. The County Council has requested a developer contribution of £911,855 towards the cost of providing additional primary school places should the Halstead Road development be approved planning permission. A new school of 450 pupils would be expected to have a site area (excluding buildings) of circa 1.84 hectares. Christ Church & St Peter's Primary School has a site area (excluding buildings), of circa 2.3 hectares. Therefore this funding would be used to expand Christ Church & St Peter's Primary School or another primary school within the area to serve the development. An element of flexibility in the Section 106 agreement would be required to enable us to meet the educational needs generated by this proposed development.’

The County Council acting as the Minerals Authority has confirmed that it does not object to the proposal in terms of it impact on the nearby quarry. It therefore does not consider the proposal contrary to Minerals policies and in particular the Leicestershire Minerals Core Strategy.

Primary Care Trust - considers the occupants of this development are likely to register with surgeries on Linkfield Road and Rothley Road which currently has a shortfall in facilities of 198m². Therefore extensions are required and a capital contribution of £583 per 1 or 2 bed dwelling; £1167 per 3 or 4 bed and £1750 per 5 or more bed houses is required and would be directed to those surgeries by the Healthcare Trust.

Severn Trent Water Authority request a condition be attached.

The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) objects for the following reasons: • In their view prematurity could be a reason to refuse development located outside development limits where a 5 year land supply argument exists; • The proposal is contrary to Policies CT/1, CT/2 and CT7; • Proposal is detrimental to Highway safety due to likelihood of additional use of country roads that provide unsuitable through rotes and have safety implications; • The location conflicts with the aims of PPG13 in that access to public transport is poor and it will increase use of private cars; • Local schools and surgeries are overloaded; • The Loughborough Cycling Group considers the indicative layout to be acceptable but suggest a cycle link to Bond Lane be provided. The group doubts the evidence regarding access to public transport, and highlights traffic likely to use ‘rat runs’ in the countryside.

The Environmental Health Officer has concerns regarding the relationship of the site and the nearby Quarry referring to the following:

1. Air Quality.

15 There remains the potential that despite recently added controls being put in place by the quarry, the fall out of dust from this site will still have the potential for a detrimental impact on any properties located on this particular area of land. Whilst the quarry is currently reviewing environmental controls and monitoring protocols I am reluctant to support any application that would introduce residential properties into this area. The applicant failed to identify the potential environmental impact of dust on the site from quarrying activities. I would therefore recommend that the applicant submit additional information to quantify the likely dust impact. 2. Given the proximity of the development site to current operational areas of the quarry there is also the potential for complaints to arise as a result of noise. Again whilst this may not occur at nuisance levels some impact on local amenity is likely given the current operating hours and level of activity. The applicant has submitted a noise assessment report by Hoare Lea Acoustics in support of the application but having reviewed the details I am concerned that the report may have under estimated the likely noise impact. The report has concentrated on assessment using PPG24 to establish the Noise Exposure Category of the site from road traffic. Where industrial noise is likely to affect an area PPG24 recommends assessment using BS4142:1997 ‘Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Residential and Industrial Areas’. In addition due to the nature of the nearby operation, noise assessment using the methodology outlined within British Standard 5228: part 1: 2009 ‘Code of Practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites’ and Mineral Planning Guidance MPS 2 ‘Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Minerals Extraction in England’ 2005 should have been considered. Manned on-site measurements should include worse case conditions, which due to the current operating hours of the quarry and road stone coating plant should include early morning and evening periods. This is also the time that future residents are more likely to be at home, traffic on adjacent roads is likely to be less and therefore the impact of noise emissions from the quarry more severe. Certain assumptions were necessary in order to undertake the assessment and it is these assumptions that I would also question. The applicant failed to approach Lafarge to confirm the level of operations being undertaken at the quarry at the time of the noise survey was a true representation of typical operations. The applicant also appears to have relied upon stockpiles at the quarry site to provide noise mitigation. These stockpiles are associated with quarrying operations and as such their height, location and composition are likely to vary overtime. They therefore cannot be relied upon as providing noise mitigation necessary to protect local amenity. BS 5228-1:2009 indicates that a barrier attenuation of up to 10 dB(A) can be expected when a noise screen completely hides the source noise from the receiver. Should these stockpiles be removed (as may be likely during the lifetime of the quarry operation) operational noise may therefore increase by 10 dB causing a perceivable impact to residents. Lafarge is well aware of the need to minimise disturbance to residential properties and have incorporated comprehensive design and management routines to prevent and limit emissions. The development site is however significantly closer to operational areas than comparable residential developments. I would therefore recommend that the noise report be resubmitted addressing 16 the points raised above so that the full impact of the existing noise climate can be assessed. 3. Blasting Blasting levels are controlled by current planning conditions. Whilst this should ensure that levels are below levels likely to cause structural damage to properties, individuals’ perception of blast vibration vary. Some individuals find very low levels disturbing therefore the potential for complaints to arise from future occupiers must be acknowledged.

The Landscape Officer although considers some merits to the landscaping proposals suggested, objects due to the indicative Masterplan and Design Statement as insufficiently sensitive to development in the Charnwood Forest.

The Borough Council Senior Ecologist accepts the assessment on bio-diversity whilst having reservations regarding the green spaces proposed in the illustrative masterplan, and the Environmental Statement has identified the need for a great crested newt survey of the local ponds which has not been undertaken. Appropriate planning conditions requiring mitigation measures proposed in the ES would be required.

At the time of writing the Council’s Build for Life Assessment has not been completed. This will be included in the extras report.

No comments have yet been received from the Environment Agency. It is expected that comments will be included in the extras report.

Other Comments Received

Mountsorrel Parish Council objects on the following issues:

• Mountsorrel has been developed beyond the capacity of its service facilities and has become a commuter based residence. It has the following problems: o limited retailing with no focal point, o poor social and community facilities in relation to its size, o it lacks a higher level school; o the primary school is oversubscribed and operates on a constrained site; o health facilities are full; o it suffers high levels of deprivation being an identified Priority Neighbourhood. The Parish considers additional housing on the scale proposed is detrimental to the social cohesion of the village and the applicant has failed to address or properly analyse the issue.

• The rapid growth and lack of facilities has increased the pressure on the remaining undeveloped or green spaces around Mountsorrel increasing the importance of their retention;

17 • The proposal is contrary to PPS1 in that the proposal has lacked appropriate involvement of the community. The Parish Council considers that the community has not been given adequate or timely opportunities to participate. The applicant has not carried out any meaningful consultation with residents. • The applicant has failed to consider ‘Social inclusion or cohesion’. No reference is made to the Leicestershire or Charnwood Sustainable Community Strategies and in doing so fails to properly address the following: o To reduce the need to and distance of travel by car and increase walking cycling and public transport; o To secure the provision of accessible facilities to meet the need for local people; o To promote health and well being improving access to health care, parks green spaces and the countryside etc; o To reduce social exclusion and deprivation; o To protect communities by reducing crime and anti-social behaviour; o To promote stronger, cohesive communities; o To protect the special and distinctive qualities of all landscapes and to pay special attention to impacts upon Charnwood Forrest and its environments. o To create distinctive and quality places for local people by requiring high quality design and increasingly higher environmental standards in new development. The Parish Council considers the proposal is silent on these strategies and strategic objectives. It completely omits to refer to the relevant issue that the site is near to the Mountsorrel Priority Neighbourhood. It therefore is considered the proposal cannot meet these key strategic aims.

• The proposal fails to fully or properly address Policy CT/7 and its impact on the Charnwood Forest Area of Particularly Attractive countryside (APAC). The applicant has misrepresented or omitted significant elements of the policy. • The Mountsorrel Hills and Mountsorrel Common form the eastern edge of Charnwood Forest. The site is part of the continuity and connection of landscape components. The proposal cannot maintain or enhance the character and appearance of this element of the APAC landscape. The Parish therefore endorses the view given by the Borough Council’s policy assessment. • The Design and Access Statement is neither reliable nor appropriate in its approach to the site and its setting for the following reasons: o It refers to existing facilities but fails to analyse their ability to cope at present or with additional burden, o It is focused on land ownership boundaries rather than the area at large; o Its policy summary omits the vital policy CT/7 of utmost importance for design consideration; o The access and movement consideration does not stand up to close examination in that Bond Lane is an unlit lane with no footpaths, very

18 steep and does not lead to the village centre and very much a part of the APAC, a north-south connection through the site to it cannot perform the function suggested and will not benefit the Walton Way area, seemingly supported by the Highway Authority view. o The Masterplan fails to demonstrate how the proposal integrates with the existing village, producing a somewhat isolated development; o The design approach incorrectly focuses on the Soar Valley area rather than the Swithland Zone within which the site falls which underpins the failure of the Design and Access Statement. o The sketch views portray a large housing estate with little relevant local distinctiveness with no regard to the APAC, o The contention that the proposal will provide a more successful urban edge to Mountsorrel is unjustifiable. The Parish considers the existing urban edge successfully enables the flow of Charnwood Forest into the western edge of the village, part of a structural connection of high ground between Mountsorrel Common and Mountsorrel Hills. It is open attractive landscape and a key element of green infrastructure for a settlement that has rapidly grown in recent years. o The contention that the accommodation mix would reflect the needs and aspirations of the local community is unsubstantiated as the developer chose not to consult. • The applicants transport assessment fails on the following grounds: o The relationship to existing facilities is poor with most in lower Mountsorrel a significant walking distance; o The site itself does not have good access to public transport and the Parish strongly doubts the diversion of bus routes will take place; o The proposed enhancements of a footpath on the northern side of Halstead Road, improved waiting facilities to the nearest bus stop, the use of rail travel as an attractive alternative to car commuting, and benefits of a Bond Lane Link, are token references that are an unacceptable basis of a sustainable transport solution. Therefore the main thrust of the TA is a car based solution contrary to planning policy aims. o The routes and junctions to the A6 bypass are inadequate including Linkfield Road, Danvers Road, The Green, Mountsorrel Lane, Swithland Lane, and Wood Lane.

• The applicant contends that additional housing will sustain the existing facilities of the village. However the Parish Council contends that the existing facilities need to expand to meet the current need. Reference to the Policy Officers view regarding the evidence base consideration is still emerging and therefore consideration regarding the scale of growth supportable by existing services is yet to be made. • The Parish highlights in detail the concerns of the Primary School and the Surgery. It further highlights that whilst contributions may be made the certainty that these will be spent on the locally affected schools and surgeries is a significant concern therefore having no benefit to the local community.

19 • High levels of affordable housing may be unwelcomed given the high levels provided in Mountsorrel; • The proposal could contribute significantly towards the proposed Memorial Centre and local policing in seeking to meet concerns of social cohesion; • Support is given to the view of Lafarge in terms of the relationship between the housing and the quarrying activities. • The development will disadvantage the proposed Mountsorrel Railway Project; • The new Coalition Governments aspirations regarding Local Authorities setting their own housing supply targets, and the Conservative party’s aim to create an open source planning system requires community’s to take an active part in shaping their own surroundings. This proposal does not accord with such aims and as such should be rejected.

The Great Central Railway objects with concerns that new housing alongside a possible rural branch line will lead to increased vandalism to the GCR itself, and increased traffic in this attractive part of the county is detrimental to tourism aims and operators. The GCR supports the Mountsorrel Railway Project Volunteer Group but acknowledges that this is a stand alone project.

Lafarge the Quarry Operator has objected for the following reasons: It is contrary to Policy MPS1 and Policy 37 of the RSS; The proposal is contrary to Policies MSC10 and MDC8 of the Leicestershire Minerals Core Strategy. The application does not consider policies regarding whether the proposal will represent a constraint to the working of the Quarry; The Noise assessment proposes mitigation that is in its view untenable and therefore does not properly consider the impact of the quarry activities on future residential amenity; the assessment relies upon the existence of stockpiles to suppress noise, which if moved results in increased exposure to noise; No evidence of quarry operating activities has been sought or rolled into the assessments; If permitted housing located near the quarry could lead to additional complaints regarding the minerals working activity potentially sterilising the access to the minerals; It will sterilise the possible Swithland rail link to the GCR which would prevent additional movement by rail.

Lafarge request that if the application be approved appropriate responsibility for noise and air quality monitoring be given to the applicant.

The Ramblers Association welcomes the development and hopes a successful pedestrian link to the Leicester Round is achieved.

Letters received from over 135 residents objecting on the following grounds:

• Detrimental to Highway Safety in terms of: o It will generate unacceptable levels of increased traffic; 20 o The immediate highway network, in particular link roads to the A6, is insufficient to cope and will entice vehicles to’ rat-run’ alternatives in the open countryside being detrimental to highway safety. o It is contrary to Policy TR/6; o A development of this size and in this location would justifiably require the completion of a new link road from the A6 to Walton Way to allow all the extra traffic to easily and safely reach the A6 with minimal disturbance to the village and existing community. o The junction at Halstead Lane and Wood Lane must be improved; o An increased use of the poor highway network will have impact on pedestrian safety in the area; o Public transport access is poor in the area; o The Traffic Impact Assessment is flawed; o As the local school cannot meet demand children will have to be driven to the nearest available being contrary to transport aims of reducing car use; o It was unfair for the public consultation period to occur without comments from the highway Authority; o The proposed Travel Plan is meaningless to highway safety concerns; • The local school is currently operating over capacity and has no ability to expand; The Head-teacher of Christ Church & St. Peter's Primary School, has emphasised this concern and fears any further increase will impact on standards of service; • The proximity to National Grid overhead pylons, with the Government supported link to a possible increase in Childhood Leukaemia; • The potential danger of Radon Gas from the granite bedrock; • The close proximity to the recently filled landfill near Cufflins Pit Lane and Bond Lane; • Loss of good agricultural land; • Does the open space provision accord with policy, how will it be maintained? • Suggested density seems higher than recommended minimum; • The unsustainable location with poor pedestrian access to services; • Insufficient Youth and adult facilities exist and the proposal will add burden to concerns of ant-social behaviour from youths; • The quality of education of nearby schools will suffer if classroom sizes increase; • Pre-school facilities are also over burdened and will not be able to cope with a large influx in children; • Healthcare facilities are currently unable to cope; • Social housing is not needed; • It represents the further loss of open countryside representing urban sprawl and has a detrimental impact to particular attractive countryside; • Proposed houses will be too near to the quarry and will suffer structural damage from quarry blasting; • Flooding implications to Halstead Road and surrounding areas exacerbated by the quarrying activities; • Impact on the proposed heritage railway link from Swithland Lane to Bond Lane; 21 • There is no local need for this level of housing; • Insufficient local shops to meet the needs of future residents and the services are not closed to the site therefore suggesting it is unsustainable; • It will be detrimental to wildlife in the area; • It will result in an overbearing impact to nearby residents; • It will endanger the re-opening of the Volunteer rail link and any tourism benefit;

Consideration of the Planning Issues

The key considerations include the following issues:

• The principle of the development of land outside the limits to development; • The impact on the character of the open countryside; • Highway safety concerns; • Design and layout and the impact on the character of Mountsorrel and the Charnwood Forrest (Build for Life assessment); • Impact on residential amenity of future residents and neighboring occupiers; • Impact on biodiversity; • Impact on the working of the Quarry; • Archaeological considerations; • Impact on the infrastructure of Mountsorrel;

The principle of the development.

The Secretary of State’s letter reiterates the Coalition Government’s previous statement in their Programme for Government that it is the Government’s intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies and that any decisions on housing supply will rest with Local Planning Authorities without the framework of regional numbers and plans.

It is important to emphasise, however, that the East Midlands Regional Plan has not been revoked and remains part of the Development Plan for Charnwood. The requirement to maintain a five year supply of deliverable sites set out in Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing also remains. The Council’s five year supply is measured against the housing requirement set out in the East Midlands Regional Plan.

The Secretary of State’s letter states that Government’s intention to abolish the East Midlands Regional Plan and allow Local Planning Authorities to make decisions on housing numbers is a material consideration. However we do not currently have an alternative robustly evidenced housing figure to consider or any transitional arrangements founded in government policy or legislation upon which to base an alternative figure.

22 In considering what weight to give the Secretary of State’s letter as a material consideration, it is the view of the Director that consideration is given to the following:

• The absence of any robust evidence for an alternative view of housing numbers from that set out in the extant Regional Plan, • The absence of any transitional arrangements; • The need to have regard to the requirement in Planning Policy Statement 3 to maintain a five year supply of deliverable sites measured against the Regional Plan.

In the Directors view the letter does not therefore change the overall conclusions that this Council cannot currently provide a 5 year supply of land for housing. Therefore the application needs to be considered by the criteria detailed in PPS3.

The impact on the Charnwood Forest

This site is located within Charnwood Forest, which is identified as a regional landscape priority in the Regional Plan and is designated in the Local Plan as an Area of Particularly Attractive Countryside. There are also proposals in the Regional Plan for a Charnwood Forest Regional Park, however, this proposal has not matured sufficiently through the Local Development Framework and the emerging local interpretation of this policy carries limited weight. Regional and local policies for the Charnwood Forest do not rule out development. In considering these policies the key questions are whether the proposal would protect and enhance the natural and heritage landscape of the Charnwood Forest and whether it would detract from the essentially undeveloped rural character of the landscape, damage natural features and landform or diminish the visual amenities afforded by important viewpoints. There is a slight difference in the wording between the Regional Plan and the Local Plan policies: whereas the Local Plan refers to development maintaining or enhancing the character and appearance of the landscape, the Regional Plan policy states that landscape should be protected and enhanced. The Regional Plan is the most up-to-date policy, and supersedes the Local Plan policy in the case of any discrepancy. It is therefore not sufficient for development merely to protect landscape character; development should also enhance that character.

The proposal’s location adjacent to the Leicestershire Round footpath, a key green link from the Soar Valley to the Forest, raises major concerns about how a development of the scale proposed will protect and enhance the Charnwood Forest. This proposal would have a significant impact on the undeveloped rural character of the landscape, as viewed from the footpath, which is very characteristic of the Charnwood Forest. The views across the site from the footpath are an important element of this green link from the centre of Mountsorrel providing residents with very accessible gateway to the green infrastructure of the wider forest landscape to the west of Mountsorrel, out towards Swithland Reservoir. This long distance Leicestershire Round footpath is specifically identified as one of three key elements of green infrastructure features in the Charnwood Forest Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment for the Swithland Landscape Character Area. 23

The proposal would extend the urban influence of Mountsorrel village both northwards to the Leicestershire Round footpath and westwards along Halstead Road. This would reduce the visual amenity from the important viewpoint from the footpath and reduce the quality of this green link into the countryside which currently provides instant access to Charnwood Forest from the centre of village. Whilst it is accepted that the quarry to the north of the site is a dominant landscape feature in this area; that does not diminish the landscape value of the application site or its role, as the quarry is well screened from the footpath and the proposal site by a belt of woodland.

The views of the proposal site from Swithland Road and the area to the west are screened to some extent by the trees running along the dismantled railway route. It is recognised that this does reduce the impact of the proposal on views from other areas of the Charnwood Forest, west of the site. The key landscape issue therefore is not the impact on the wider forest area but the negative impact of the proposal on the important green link of Leicestershire Round footpath and Halstead Road and therefore the community’s access to, and relationship with, the Charnwood Forest. For these reasons it is considered that the proposal fails to protect the particular character of Charnwood Forest.

Whilst this is an outline application, given the site’s location in Charnwood Forest, a strong set of strategic design principles that deal with this issue and the need for locally distinctive, high quality design which responds to the site’s location and its role in providing green linkages to the wider forest area is expected. In the absence of this it is not possible to assess the impact of the proposal. It is not considered that the proposed development will deliver the high quality of development required to complement the setting of the site within Charnwood Forest and would not deliver high quality housing required by paragraph 69 of PPS3. The design and access statement for this proposal fails to respond positively to the site’s location in the Charnwood Forest in terms of design. The focus of the statement provided by the applicant is on highlighting how the proposal will not have a significant impact on the wider Charnwood Forest area and ensuring there is a more successful urban edge and not on how the proposal will respond to the Charnwood Forest context in the design of the proposal, enhance the landscape or protect the community’s access to this landscape in line with the 6Cs green infrastructure strategy.

Assessing Deliverability

It is important to assess the proposal against the criteria set out in PPS3 for identifying deliverable sites in order to establish whether the site can contribute to the overall supply of deliverable sites. To be considered deliverable, sites should be available, suitable and achievable (PPS3, paragraph 54). The Council’s Assessment of Five Year Supply expands on these three criteria. It is important to emphasise that whilst this site has been assessed against these criteria as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (March 2009), this is a technical document to inform the Local Development Framework process. The assessment is policy neutral and does not therefore indicate whether a site would be given planning permission. 24 Suitability

A key piece of evidence base in assessing the site’s suitability against PPS3 is the ‘Settlement Hierarchy Review’ published in September 2008 to inform the Core Strategy. This assessment considered the availability and accessibility of services and facilities, settlement size and function and the geographical distribution. This assessment found that Mountsorrel has 13 different services and facilities, 35 in total including a primary school, doctor’s surgery, dentist, main convenience shops, post office, library, leisure centre and community facilities. Mountsorrel also has good public transport accessibility with a daytime bus service every 10 minutes Monday to Saturday and hourly service on weekday evenings and on Sunday.

This assessment shows that Mountsorrel has good access to a full range of services and facilities and good access by bus and is therefore in general terms a sustainable location for new development. This is reflected in the advice published on our website that explains the Council’s approach in determining planning applications for housing development in rural communities in Charnwood based on national guidance, recent appeal decisions and the evidence base study referred to above.

On the basis of this evidence, the Core Strategy Further Consultation document identifies Mountsorrel as a Service Centre, where a smaller scale development to that proposed in the Main Urban Centres will be appropriate in locations within or adjoining the settlement limits. However it is important to emphasise that the Core Strategy has limited weight at this stage of its preparation. It is also important to consider that the Core Strategy evidence base is still emerging and therefore the decision about the scale of growth that could potentially be accommodated in proposed Service Centres has not been made at this stage.

The suggestion in the applicant’s Planning Statement that the Core Strategy evidence base suggests that Mountsorrel could accommodate in the region of 500 new homes up to 2026 is not accurate. The Core Strategy evidence base is still emerging and therefore the decision about the scale of growth that could potentially be accommodated in proposed Service Centres has not been made at this stage. The Settlement Hierarchy Review (2008) clearly states that the maximum scale of additional housing envisaged in any Service Centre would be 500 dwellings where this could help address specific local issues and adequate services, facilities and infrastructure are available or can be made available as a result of the development. It clearly states that further work is needed to identify where this might be appropriate.

Although Mountsorrel is identified as a Service Centre and has a central area that is reasonably accessible by bus, walking and cycling, there is insufficient information provided with this application to be confident that this proposal provides an acceptable level of sustainable modes of transport provision to be a sustainable location for new housing. Unless provision particularly for bus travel is significantly improved this is likely to be a car based development with ready access to the main road network.

25 None of the site is directly served by the 10 minute bus service available in the village or within the 400m walking distance threshold we usually use to assess accessibility by bus. The bus route which runs along Halstead Road is the 99 Winsons Service between Mountsorrel and Leicester which only runs three times a day and is therefore not considered a reasonable alternative to the car. The eastern part of the site will be within about 1km walking distance of Loughborough/ Leicester service 126/127 which runs north south along Mountsorrel Lane/ Rothley Road/ old A6. This is too far to be a reasonable walking distance for most people. The nearest main employment sites at Granite Way (north of the village) and Rothley Lodge (to the south) are c3km from the site and neither are readily accessible by non car modes.

The site is 1km from the nearest convenience shop on Rothley Road and about 1.5km from the main services and facilities on Leicester Road / Loughborough Road and over 3km to Budgins the largest general store in the village. Whilst there are no dedicated cycle routes in the vicinity of the site (the nearest is the old A6 some 1.5km to the east) there are some quiet roads / lanes nearby and facilities in Mountsorrel would be reasonably accessible by bicycle. The site is also within acceptable walking distance from the nearest general shop and village centre.

The evidence base work to date for the Core Strategy does not assess the capacity of services and facilities to support significant scales of development. This work is underway to inform the Core Strategy and Allocations Development Plan Document but will not be available in time for this application.

For these reasons it is not considered that this site is in a suitable location to be released in order to accommodate the scale of housing development proposed.

Availability

The site can be identified as available as the site is owned and being promoted by the developer Jelson Homes Ltd.

Achievability

The developer has provided evidence that there are no cost factors, market factors or deliverability issues that would prevent the development from coming forward within five years. The Planning Statement outlines the developer’s commitment and confidence in delivering the site within the next five years. As this is an outline application it is difficult to come to view about this, particularly given the lack of information around a sustainable transport package and its cost and whether this would impact on the prospect of the site being delivered by March 2015 and therefore contributing to the Council’s five year supply.

Priority for Brownfield Land

The Regional Plan also sets out a target for brownfield development of 60% for the East Midlands. This proposal is a significant greenfield development which does not make best use of previously developed land available in sustainable locations. Within

26 Mountsorrel there are seven developable brownfield sites identified in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (March 2009) providing potential opportunity for approximately 200 dwellings. Across the Borough there are further previously developed sites available within urban areas and other sustainable settlements. These brownfield sites should be prioritised ahead of greenfield developments. However these brownfield sites are not being promoted for planning permission and there is a significant shortfall in housing land in the Borough which needs to be addressed in accordance with PPS3. If this site is found to be suitable for development it would be unreasonable to hold this site back in the hope a brownfield site will come forward.

Overall there are two issues with the application which need to be considered. Firstly the site falls within the regional priority landscape of the Charnwood Forest and would have a significant impact on the undeveloped rural character of this landscape, bringing the urban influences of Mountsorrel village northwards up to the Leicestershire Round footpath which currently enjoys views of an area very characteristic of the Charnwood Forest landscape and provides an important green link into wider forest area for residents of Mountsorrel and other Soar Valley villages. The proposal fails to respond positively to its location within the Forest area in terms of design and therefore fails to demonstrate that the proposal would protect and enhance the Charnwood Forest.

Secondly the proposal is not well related to a regular bus service and there is insufficient information available to assess whether a satisfactory package of non-car based interventions can be delivered to improve the sites accessibility to services and facilities available in main urban areas.

Thirdly as concerns to the accessibility to services particularly if the nearest local facilities such as schools, and healthcare surgeries, are unavailable and no evidence is given by the applicant as regards the present degree of availability, and given evidence from the service providers themselves, the concerns regarding the degree of the sites sustainable location exist.

Whilst there are some concerns about releasing a site of this scale in Mountsorrel ahead of completing the evidence base and comparative assessment of potential sites for the Core Strategy and Site Allocations Development Plan Document, PPS3 is clear that prematurity is not a sufficient reason to refuse this proposal. However there are significant concerns about the suitability of the proposal when considered against the adopted Development Plan which suggests that this application should not be considered favorably, irrespective of the Borough’s five year supply situation as it would not meet the requirements set out in PPS3 paragraph 69.

The impact on Highway Safety.

The Highway Authority objects regarding the proposed access details and on the basis that the existing highway network is inadequate to cater for the traffic generated by the proposed development. Accordingly, the proposal is an unacceptable form of development that would lead to dangers for road users.

27 Therefore the proposal is considered contrary to Policy TR/6 of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan.

It is the Director’s view that a rigorous assessment of the pedestrian access to existing essential services and their capacity to cope with the proposed development is required. It is not considered that the site is easily accessible to the range of services required by the scale of development proposed. Accordingly, the residents are likely to rely predominantly on car based access to services, and this factor reinforces the conclusion that the site is not in a suitable location for the scale of housing proposed. It is concluded that the measures or opportunities identified by the applicant will have limited impact in terms of the access to or resulting use of sustainable transport in relation to this development.

The Impact on the character of the countryside.

Whilst the applicant’s Environmental Statement (ES) has sought to consider the impact of the proposal on the landscape character it is considered that it gives insufficient weight as to how the site sits within the APAC and how it connects and relates to the village of Mountsorrel. It considers the site is much more influenced by the existing urban area, although it correctly identifies it within the Swithland character area. This view is made with an earlier acknowledgement that the site is within the APAC. Therefore the conclusions drawn by the ES which input into the applicant’s Design and Access Statement are therefore considered to be flawed. Whilst the scheme seeks to mitigate by proposed landscaping measures, the impact of approximately 330 houses on this site, and whilst there maybe some merit in green spaces proposed, the impact of this development on the APAC and therefore this link to the Charnwood Forest, and in particular the adjacent Mountsorrel Conservation Area, Leicestershire Round footpath link as it leaves Mountsorrel, is considered to result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the landscape. Therefore the proposal is considered contrary to Policies EV/1, CT/7, and Policy 31 of the East Midlands Regional Plan.

Impact on residential amenity of future residents and neighboring occupiers;

It is considered that the concerns of the Environmental Health Officer regarding the possible increase in complaints from future residents of the development regarding the issues of noise and air quality have not been satisfactorily addressed by the applicant. Therefore the proposal is considered contrary to Policy EV/39 in that future residents would be likely to suffer poor environmental amenity due to excessive noise disturbance and dust arising from existing development nearby.

The proposal itself is not considered likely to have significant detrimental impact on the residential amenity of occupiers of neighbouring houses given the nature of the development and distances between properties concerned.

Impact on biodiversity;

The proposal is considered capable of having no significantly detrimental impacts on bio-diversity. 28

Infrastructure considerations.

The local community have made significant representations regarding the current overburdening of existing services in particular the local primary school and healthcare facilities. This is supported by the head teacher and doctors in question. However the County Council as Education Authority have stated that this funding would be used to expand Christ Church & St Peter's Primary School or another primary school within the area to serve the development and therefore consider the proposed contribution would meet the educational needs generated by the development. Furthermore as the Primary Care Trust supports the provision of contributions to be directly spent on the surgeries in question, it is the Directors view that the local planning authority could not sustain a reason to refuse due to the inability of the local facilities to actually expand to meet the need. However at present there is no draft Section 106 agreement in front of the Borough Council. Therefore in the absence of such an agreement at this time the proposal is considered contrary to Policy ST/3 of the saved Borough of Charnwood Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

Refuse - Recommendation - for the following reasons:

1 - It is established planning policy, at both national and local level, that new development should be permitted outside established settlements in exceptional circumstances only. These circumstances normally relate to an agricultural need. The application site is located in the countryside and in an area of particularly attractive countryside and the principle of the development of this site for housing and is clearly contrary to existing saved Local Plan policies which are designed to protect the open countryside. The lack of a 5 year housing supply is a material consideration which must be weighed against this. However, it is the view of the Borough Council that the development would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape which is designated as an Area of Particularly Attractive Countryside in the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan. Furthermore it has not been satisfactorily demonstated that the site is suitable in terms of its sustainable location and accessibility to services. Accordingly, it is considered that insufficient exceptional circumstances which justify over-riding the normal planning policies have been demonstrated. The proposed development would conflict with the provisions of Planning Policy Statements 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, Paragraph 69 of Planning Policy Styatement 3 , Strategy Policies 1 and 2 and Policies CT/1, 2 and 7 of the adopted Borough of Charnwood Local Plan which seek to protect the rural character and appearance of the countryside.

2 - The proposed development fails to demonstrate a sufficiently high quality design, to provide sufficient assurances and evidence that the proposal can be integrated into the surrounding area without harm to the visual character of this area. The proposal, due to its outline form, and lack of evidence to demonstrate the delivery of a high quality design considered appropriate to the character of the particularly attractive countryside is thereby unacceptable and contrary to saved policies EV/1, 29 H/16 of the Adopted Borough of Charnwood Local Plan 2004, PPS 1 Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS 3 Housing, Leading in Design SPD 2006.

3 - The proposed accesses are shown in sketch form only and there is insufficient detail to enable an assessment to be made of the adequacy of the access junctions. The sketch drawings do not show any footways at the junctions and also on Halstead Road along the frontage of the proposed development. The applicant has therefore failed to demonstrate that appropriate and safe vehicular and pedestrian accesses would be provided to the proposed development and the proposal if permitted would consequently result in an unacceptable form of development and could lead to danger for road users. It is therefore contrary to Policy TR/5 of the Saved Borough of charnwood Local Plan in that it has not been demonstrated that the development will provide adequate provision for vehicular access into the site.

4 - It has not been demonstrated that the existing highway network can satisfactorily accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed development.

In particular the junctions at Halstead Road and Rothley Road, Halstead Road and Swithland Lane, and Linkfield Road and Rothley Road and Mountsorrel Lane, will be affected by the traffic generated from the development have substandard visibility and therefore additional vehicular use from the developement could be detrimental to highway safety. Furthermore, Bond Lane is relatively narrow in width; has relatively poor alignment and is therefore unsuitable to cater for the traffic generated by the proposed development. Bond Lane is unsuitable to cater for the increase in pedestrians and cyclists in addition to vehicles. It is therefore considered that the proposal would pose a hazard to road users being detrimental to highwayt safety and therefore contrary to Policy TR/6 in that it would result in unsafe and unsatisfactory operation of the highway system.

5 - The proposal houses will be close to the existing Mountsorrel Quarry. In the view of the Borough Council as local planning authority the evidence submitted does not satisfactorily ensure that an unacceptable degree of noise or dust generated by the quarrying activity will not ensue. Therefore the proposal is considered contrary to Policies EV/1 (xiii) and EV39 in that future residents would be likely to suffer poor environmental amenity due to excessive noise disturbance and dust arising from existing development nearby.

6 - Policy ST/3 of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan indicates that developers should contribute to the cost of infrastructure and facilities required to support development. This is in accordance with advice contained in Circular 05/2005. Contributions to educational requirements, highway improvements, public transport, library facilities, health facilities, youth/adult and childrens's play provision, are required, along with the provision of affordable housing at a rate of 30% of the total number of dwellings, which would need to be secured by a Section 106 Agreement. At the time of determination, no completed agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act is in existence. The proposal is therefore lacking in the provision of these facilities that would have been secured through the contributions. The development could not be controlled by conditions to deliver these facilities and, therefore, in the absence of a mechanism that secures 30 appropriate contributions to mitigate the harm to the provision of infrastructure, the development would place unacceptable burdens on the provision of public facilities in these areas and would not, therefore, fulfil the requirements of saved Policies ST/3, H/5, TR/6, RT/3, RT/4 and RT/5 of the Adopted Borough of Charnwood Local Plan.

31

This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Licence No: 100023558 This copy has been produced

specifically for Council purposes only. No further copies may be made.

Application No: P/10/0501/2 Location: Land at Halstead Road, Mountsorrel, Leicestershire, Scale: 1:5000

D

r

a

i n

LANE BOND

k Trac

Pond Well

RC CHU

HAL STEAD ROAD Pond

OAD AD R STE

HAL

D

A

O

R

T

R

O F

E D D I A N O B R U W R AY NW I G O L C

L H

O W

W A Y

G B R W A L O A V MO E L T

O R

N A

L W R

A O Y A D D U

N

S

T E

R

R

O

A

D

IERS OS THE C

K A

E S

N T

I L L E

W

R

O O R R S S T LD RO S IE H F L IGH Y H A 32 C N

L B A O A

V S R E E N N A