Homes England & Leicester Grammar School Trust Application

Planning Committee Report

Applicant: Homes England & Leicester Grammar School Trust

Application Ref: 19/00862/OUT

Location: Land Adjacent Leicester Grammar School, London Road, Great Glen

Proposal: Hybrid planning application comprising: 1.) Full: Sports pitches and facilities, including grounds maintenance building and pavilion/changing facilities building, together with landscaping, additional parking and access for Leicester Grammar School; 2.) Outline (with all matters reserved except for access): Extra care facility, including a 60 bed care building (Use Class C2), 34 associated bungalows (Use Class C2), associated access onto Chestnut Drive and landscaping, drainage and car parking areas

Application Validated: 04.06.2019

Consultation Expiry Date: 23.10.2019

Target Date: 03.09.2019 (Extension of Time Agreed)

Site Visit Date/s: 25.07.19 and 13.08.19

Case Officer: Nick White

Reason for Committee Decision: Major Application.

Recommendation

Planning Permission is REFUSED on five grounds for the reasons set out in this Committee report.

Recommended Refusal Ground 1 (Outline Proposal – location and countryside imnpact):

The proposal is not adjoining the existing or committed built up area of Great Glen and does not accord with Development Plan policy for location of new development in this regard. The proposal as a whole would present as irregular and disconnected development in the open countryside. The proposal would exacerbate, rather than cohere, the sporadic built form of its surroundings, in reference both to the commercial and residential development to its southwest (Erringtons Close, Foxpond Lane and Spion Kopje) and north (Chestnut Drive at Stretton Hall) and Leicester Grammar School, which are themselves disjointed from the village of Great Glen and read as detached pockets of urban development. Furthermore, and notwithstanding the involved care element, the development is proposed in a location, with relatively poor accessibility to shops, services and community facilities, particularly given the distance and nature of the route involved to Great Glen.

The proposed vehicular and pedestrian access to the Outline proposal from Chestnut Drive would result in the loss of Category A1 trees and would puncture a modern highway access through a potentially TPO worthy tree group.

The indicative Outline development of the site would cause low-moderate levels of visual and general harm to the rural landscape, in terms of the loss of countryside and trees. The

1 proposal would harm the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. While this harm is not substantial, it is significant in the context of there being a lack of overriding justification for the development to occur on this site and conflict with planning policy. Accordingly, the proposal does not comply with Harborough Local Plan Policies GD1, GD2, GD4, GD8, H1 and H4, the Great Glen Neighbourhood Plan and the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole. The material planning benefits of the scheme (in terms of the housing and employment benefits of a 60 bed extra care building and 34 nearby bungalows, as well as the enhanced School sporting provisions and the proximity between the Outline proposal and the School) do not outweigh the harm which has been identified when considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the Development Plan (Harborough Local Plan and Great Glen Neighbourhood Plan), as well as the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Recommended Refusal Ground 2 (Outline Proposal – Loss of Category A1 Trees and Less than Substantial Harm to Heritage Interests):

The proposed vehicular and pedestrian access to the Outline proposal from Chestnut Drive would result in the loss of Category A1 Corsican Pines trees which form part of a remnant linear arboricultural-planting feature in the landscape that articulates the relationship between the “Stretton Hall Gate Lodge” (South Lodge) and Grade II* (star) Listed Stretton Hall. The trees are of particular significance/value given their age, limited remaining number and discernible linear arrangement and association with the former driveway which led between the southern Stretton Hall Gate Lodge and Stretton Hall. The loss of the trees would reduce the contribution that the remnant line of Corsican Pines makes to the setting of the Stretton Hall Gate Lodge and the Listed Hall and the concomitant legibility of the Gate Lodge association with the Hall. The result would represent a lower degree of less than substantial harm to the significance of heritage assets. It has not been demonstrated that an alternative access to the site is not viable. On balance, the public benefits of the scheme do not outweigh the harm to arboricultural interests which pertain to the significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets.

Accordingly, the proposal does not comply with Harborough Local Plan Policies GD5, GD8 and HC1 and the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole. No other material considerations indicate that the policies of the Development Plan should not prevail.

Recommended Refusal Ground 3 (Outline and Full – Proposal Lack of Archaeological Information):

Evidence indicates that the site may contain heritage value in terms of archaeological (evidential) significance – the value derived from the potential of the site to yield evidence about past human activity. The proposals include operations that may destroy buried archaeological remains that are present, but the archaeological implications cannot be adequately assessed on the basis of the currently available information.

Allowing the proposal to proceed without understanding the potential effect of the application on the significance of such non-designated heritage assets is not reasonable; a balanced judgement as to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset cannot be undertaken.

Accordingly, the proposal does not comply with Harborough Local Plan Policies GD8 and HC1 and the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole. No other material considerations indicate that the policies of the Development Plan should not prevail.

1. Site & Surroundings

1.1 The application site consists of two fields of arable countryside and associated linear tree shelter belts. The site covers a total area of 13.2 hectares.

Application Site (Source: HDC Uniform. Dashed Lines = Public Rights of Way):

1.2 London Road runs alongside the southwest boundary of the site. This is the London to Manchester Turnpike Road (HER MLE20647) and was the second turnpike road in Leicestershire, running from Market Harborough to Loughborough. It was turnpiked in the 1725-6 Act of 1st Authorisation, which was repealed on 1st November 1878. The road was formerly the A6 before the dual carriageway bypass was opened.

1.3 The Stretton Hall Gate Lodge (HER MLE22210) (in separate ownership to the Hall) lies adjacent to the southwest corner of the site. Stretton Hall is Grade II* (star) Listed and lies several hundred metres farther along Chestnut Drive to the northeast of the site. The Gate Lodge is not Listed, perhaps given its separate ownership at the time of Listing. It would be unlikely to qualify as Curtilage Listed today because of this (noting Historic England Advice Note 10; “Listed Buildings and Curtilage”; Published 21 February 2018).

Of all Listed Buildings on the HE List: --2.5% are Grade I --5.5% are Grade II* --92% are Grade II

1.4 An area of residential and commercial development lies to the southwest of the site (Spion Kopje, Foxpond Lane and Erringtons Close), which has its planning history in previously developed land and/or local and national plans, policies and guidance of decades past.

1.5 Chestnut Drive runs along the western edge of the site, with countryside beyond.

1.6 Beyond the northern extent of the site, Chestnut Drive leads first to a perpendicular row of semi-detached dwellings (originally built as agricultural workers’ dwellings), then continues to the aforementioned Stretton Hall and the ~100 dwelling residential estate development by David Wilson Homes to the west side of the Hall (planned mid-late 1990s and implemented circa 2000). The row of semi-detached dwellings and the David Wilson development are outlined here (small oval &circle respectively):

1.7 Leicester Grammar School Buildings and sports facilities lie to the east of the site.

1.8 Towards the southern extent of the LGS site there is Grade II Listed 39 London Road (former farmhouse and yard). It is now effectively a traffic island to LGS access road movements. A terraced row of 10 Grade II Listed almshouses, known as Cricks Retreat (dated 1870), lies in this area.

1.9 Lodge, 45 London Road (HER MLE22212) is also noted in this area, adjacent to London Road; similar to Stretton Hall Gate Lodge it is not Listed, but has the characteristics of a non-designated heritage asset.

Listed assets to southeast of site (highlighted):

1.10 From a centre point in the layout of the indicatively proposed 34x bungalows to the centre of Great Glen on foot (the Co-op retail unit in this specific example) is measured at ~1,450 metres.

1.11 The site lies outside Great Glen’s recently re-established Limits to Development.

1.12 The site is not within or adjacent to a Conservation Area.

1.13 The site does not contain ridge and furrow earthworks, ancient woodland or designated ecological sites.

1.14 The site contains 36 individual trees and 3 groups of trees which are designated as Category A (trees of the highest quality and value) by the applicant’s Arboricultural Report (April 2019). A TPO on a number of groups of trees around the southwest parts of the site (some affected by the proposal) is being investigated. .

2. Site History

2.1 The site has no pertinent planning history.

3. The Application Submission

a) Summary of Proposal

3.1 The application has been submitted in hybrid format; i.e., part of the application seeks outline planning permission and part seeks full planning permission.

3.2 The two parts of the hybrid application are structured as follows:

3.3 A.)

Outline planning permission (with all matters reserved except for access) is being sought for a 60 bed Use Class C2 extra care home building and 34 bungalows (which the applicant states are also Use Class C2).

Access is proposed via a new vehicular and pedestrian access from Chestnut Drive. A pedestrian access to London Road is indicated along the southwest boundary.

In order to accommodate 60 bedrooms and all other associated corridors, communal rooms, ancillary rooms, offices, etc., the extra care building is indicated to be “up to 11.5m (up to 2.5 Storeys)” (Building Heights Plan). It was originally proposed to be “up to 12.5m (up to 3.5 Storeys)”, but Officers expressed concerns with this.

The extra care building is stated to include “Community space/facility on the ground floor of the care home (480 square metres)” (Planning Statement; Para 3.1.5). This is understood to also be the residents’ communal lounge, dining room and associated facilities. The applicant has stated “that the floorspace of the care building shown in the illustrative masterplan is approximately 4620 sq.m in total (1540 sq.m per floor).” (email 19.08.19). It is noted that this indicative at this stage.

The bungalows were originally proposed to be “up to 7.5m (up to 2 Storeys)”. Officers queried how this would be compatible with both the term “bungalows”, the applicant’s statement that they are to be “a mix of 1 bed and 2 beds” and the applicant’s claim that the proposal is intended to be for elderly persons / persons with physical impairment, disability or persons approaching those stages of life. In response, the applicant amended the indicative proposal for the bungalows to be “up

to 5.5m (up to 1.5 Storeys)”. This still indicates that the applicant may wish to pursue a REM application for dwellings which have accommodation over 2 floors. There is some inherent incompatibility with this and the case which the applicant makes in other supporting documents regarding the bungalows being only Use Class C2. This matter is discussed later in this report.

3.4 Applicant’s indicative CGIs of the 60 bed extra care building:

3.5 B.) Full planning permission is being sought for a range of sporting facilities and associated development to serve Leicester Grammar School, including:

• A rugby pitch for school pupil use and a limited degree of community use.

The community use is described as the ‘continued and extended use for Leicester Tigers developing player programme’. The community use element could be secured via a Community Use Agreement planning condition.

• An athletics track and field marked out on a grass playing field, for school pupil use only.

• A cricket pitch (grass surface), for school pupil use only.

The cricket pitch requires ball strike netted fencing to mitigate the risk of cricket balls hitting any persons or property outside the application site (along Chestnut Drive and in the proposed overflow car park). This is proposed as a 6m high netted fence of 125m length along the Chestnut Drive boundary and a 3m high netted fence of 75m length along the overflow car parking boundary.

• An overflow car park (~50 unmarked spaces) accessed from Chestnut Drive at the northern part of the site, associated with the sport pitches. It would measure approximately 57.5m x 40m. A grass grid system is proposed for the parking surface so that it retains the appearance of a grassed field. A “5 bar timber double swing” field gate would be installed at the access. A timber knee rail would delineate the perimeter of the parking area. Additional landscaping / screening is proposed along the northeast boundary.

• A grounds maintenance building. The building measures 195sq.m in gross internal floor area. It would be ~3.75m high to its eaves and ~5.95m to ridge and would sit approximately 3.5m below the parallel level of Chestnut Drive:

• A sports pavilion building (10 team changing rooms, umpire, staff and disabled changing rooms, first aid room, kit storage and plant rooms, and first floor function

space, kitchen, servery, WCs and external viewing terraces). The building measures approximately 30m x 30m footprint. It would be ~8.65m high (ground level to top of parapet). The building would sit approximately 2m below the parallel level of Chestnut Drive.

• Alterations to the school’s existing car park to create a circulation area with additional car parking spaces (100 spaces) and coach waiting areas.

3.6 In the following Illustrative Masterplan extract, the proposed facilities lie to the left/west of the tree belt (& part to south), with the existing LGS complex to the right:

b) Schedule of Plans / Documents Submitted with Application

3.7 The applicant has submitted a “Plan/Document Schedule (dated 05.11.19)”. This contains a list of all of the plans and documents which form part of the current application and upon which the planning assessment is based.

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

3.8 The “Plan/Document Schedule (dated 05.11.19)” also reflects all of the additional information and amended plans which have been submitted since Validation of the application.

3.9 Additional information has been submitted in response to Officer and Consultee comments, relating primarily to the following matters:

• Agricultural Land Classification • ‘C2 Use Statement’ and 01.11.19 ‘Further Supporting Statement – Extra Care proposals’** • Cricket Boundary Assessment (ball strike netted fencing) • Drainage & Flood Risk • Ecology • Highways • Lighting Assessment Addendum • Noise Assessment Addendum • ‘S106 Contributions Response’ • ‘Sport England Response’ • ‘Woodland Trust Response’

**Reconsultation has not been undertaken on this 01.11.19 ‘Further Supporting Statement – Extra Care proposals’ document as it has not been considered to alter the substance of objection comments and necessitate a delay to the timely processing of the application.

3.10 The principal amendments which have been made during the application process are as follows:

Outline • Site Plan red line amended to show access connecting to public highway. It crossed third party land and this was not previously included within the red line. • Extra care building and bungalow heights reduced. The Extra Care 60 bed building is reduced from 12.5m to 11.5m and the “bungalows” from 7.5m to 5.5m.

Full • Athletics track and field and cricket pitch amended to be for school pupil use only. • 8x 18m high floodlights removed from proposal. • Sports pavilion stairs moved within building envelope (rather than projecting beyond the building roof as previously designed). • Grounds maintenance building plan (height) corrections. • Overflow car park surface amended from gravel to grass grid surface. • Overflow car park access gate amended from metal to timber.

d) Pre-application Engagement

3.11 The Applicant sought pre-application advice from the Local Planning Authority under PREAPP/18/00239.

3.12 There were some differences with the pre-app scheme compared to what has been submitted at planning application stage, notably with regard to access arrangements.

3.13 In brief, the applicant was advised:

“The bespoke nature of the scheme – its provision of an extra care element (circa 70 beds) and assisted bungalows (circa 30 units) – requires consideration with regard to whether a need can be demonstrated and, if so, whether the site is an acceptable location for the proposal. It is noted that local and national planning policies and guidance seek to ensure that extra care housing is planned for in the main market town/s or settlements in an area and not in locations where residents would be more remote or isolated from facilities.

The proposed development of the site remains somewhat unclear in terms of the principle of development.”

“The sports / recreation facilities may be acceptable in principle, given their requisite high land-take, requirement for reasonably flat ground and, critically, priority for maintaining a spatial / functional relationship with the existing School infrastructure.”

3.14 The Applicant has undertaken community consultation work, as detailed in their application submission.

e) Environmental Impact Assessment Screening

3.15 A similar proposal was screened under 18/01841/SCR. It was concluded that the proposal did not represent EIA development. The current application proposal is judged to accord with the findings of the 18/01841/SCR screening exercise; the proposal does not necessitate an Environmental Statement.

Homes Request for EIA screening opinion. Hybrid Land Adjacent England And planning application for circa 100 bed extra Leicester Grammar 18/01841/SCR Leicester care facility and sporting hub for Leicester School, London Grammar Grammar School Trust on land at Stretton Road, Great Glen School Trust Hall Farm, Great Glen, Leicestershire

4. Consultations and Representations

4.1 Consultations with technical consultees and the local community have been carried out on the application.

4.2 A summary of the technical consultee and local community responses which have been received is set out below. If you wish to view comments in full, please request sight or search via: www.harborough.gov.uk/planning

a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees

4.3 Cadent Gas Ltd “Cadent have identified operational gas apparatus within the application site boundary. This may include a legal interest (easements or wayleaves) in the land which restricts activity in proximity to Cadent assets in private land. The Applicant must ensure that proposed works do not infringe on Cadent’s legal rights and any details of such restrictions should be obtained from the landowner in the first instance.”

The applicant has been made aware of Cadent’s submissions (including 11/06/2019 Ref: EM_GE2A_3NWP_018155)

4.4 Charity Commission Consulted. No material planning comments.

4.5 Chief Fire Officer Consulted. No comments received.

4.6 Civil Aviation Authority Consulted because of the 18m floodlights proposed on high land. No comments received. Now judged to be superfluous as floodlights removed from proposal.

4.7 Natural England “No objection.

Based on the plans submitted, Natural England considers that the proposed development will not have significant adverse impacts on statutorily protected nature conservation sites or landscapes.”

4.8 NHS – East Leicestershire and Rutland Clinical Commissioning Group Following a query by the applicant in their ‘S106 Contribution Response’ document, the contribution has been recalculated to accord with the applicant’s figure of 120 new residents. Following re-consultation, the ELR CCG now request reduced total funding of £10,886.83.

As with the UHL healthcare contribution (see below), the applicant has argued that “A discount should be applied per person based on C2 use rather than C3 use to take account of the fact that a degree of medical care is going to be provided at the facility.” (‘S106 Contribution Response’ document).

In the same vein that education contributions are not being sought for the Outline scheme, it could conversely be argued that there should be an uplift in the contributions towards healthcare as there are likely to be higher levels of dependency and need amongst the proposed residents. By definition, the proposal is to provide “extra” care. The requirement for, free-cost of and right to access public healthcare services (rather than private healthcare) remains for residents. The ELR CCG has adopted what is considered to be a balanced approach – neither uplift nor discount.

The applicant has confirmed their agreement to this contribution (email 06/11/2019 @14:30).

4.9 Oadby & Wigston Borough Council Consulted. No comments received.

4.10 Severn Trent Water “Foul is proposed to connect into the public foul water sewer. The flood risk and drainage assessment details that sewer modelling was required as a response to the Severn Trent Water pre development enquiry. This has been undertaken and a an operational risk has been identified to the local sewage pumping station and that capacity improvements may be required before flows from this development are connected to the drainage network.

Surface water is proposed to discharge to a watercourse, which we have no comment.

For the any use or reuse of sewer connections either direct or indirect to the public sewerage system the applicant will be required to make a formal application to the Company under Section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991.”

“NB. We have clean water apparatus within the proposed application site, the developer will need to contact Severn Trent Water Developer Services Team as detailed below to assess their proposed plans for diversion requirements.”

4.11 Sport England Unable to support the original proposal, but now supports the proposal with conditions.

Comments included:

“Close proximity of the proposed rugby pitch to the proposed care home (external amenity space) and bungalows - due consideration should be given to the relationship between the two having regard to noise and disturbance and balls leaving the pitch area. This may create issues of management and restrictions of use, particularly if the pitch is to be utilised by the community out of school hours (as advised in the D&AS).”

“Clearly the school wish to develop the sports offer at the school which is encouraged, however with regard to community access the construction of an athletics track raises a note of caution, the PPS does not cover athletics, however the emerging built sports facilities strategy (BFS) does.”

“The initial findings [of the BFS] suggest that here is no strategic need for a community accessible athletics facility, further concerns would arise given the close proximity of the facility at Saffron Lane, Leicester and the impacts of an additional new facility would have on that facility, which is suffering from sustainability issues. Clearly if the school can justify the construction of such a facility for their own circular/sports development use, then this approach would be reasonable. However, if the provision of sports facilities, specifically the athletics track, is intended to mitigate against the impacts of the housing development, by creating a community sports facility, then this is not supported by emerging evidence and is not considered sustainable.”

The Rugby Football Union (RFU) was generally supportive, subject to further consideration being given to pitch and changing room designs and clarification of community access intentions provided. The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) was generally supportive, subject to the submission of a ball strike assessment.

Sport England was reconsulted following the submission of additional information which sought to address the concerns raised in SE’s previous comments. Sport England commented on 12.09.19:

“The additional information has confirmed;

• That whilst the athletics track would be supported by sports lighting the track would be marked out on the grass playing field. This removes our concerns with respect to the impact upon the saffron Lane Athletics track. In addition the facility would be for Leicester Grammar School LGS only. • That the pavilion is designed for multiple sports to deliver, primarily the schools curriculum needs. Both the RFU and ECB advise that the multi-sport intention of the facility is recognised. The comments on the pavilion layout are for consideration in an effort to progress towards good practice. • The continued and extended community use for Leicester Tigers developing player programmed is welcomed. • Sport England and the ECB support the conclusions of the ball strike risk assessment and the proposals to install ball stop fencing as recommended. The ECB also advise.

▪ Ongoing maintenance of the netting proposed in the mitigation - it is assumed that the school will assume maintenance responsibility for the ball stop fencing once constructed. ▪ That the gap between the proposed netting and the edge of the outfield boundary should meet safety requirements of 3m run off.

• Community use – Sport England supports the use of sports facilities at school sites which complement rather than compete [with] other community sports facilities. We recognise that the primary purpose is to deliver the curriculum and other sporting needs of the students but support community use on the basis of the [sic. addition] of the previously imposed condition 22. [Community Use Agreement condition 22 of 06/00875/FUL]

Conclusion

Given the submission of additional information which addresses the concern, Sport England can confirm our support for the proposal and that we do not wish to raise an objection to this application. The support is subject to the following conditions being attached to the decision notice should the local planning authority be minded to approve the application…”

2 Conditions are recommended:

1. Playing field design, including drainage, topography and playing field quality; 2. Community Use Agreement for the rugby pitch and sports pavilion facilities;

The following wording for Condition 2 has been agreed by SE:

“Prior to first use of the rugby pitch or sports pavilion facilities, a Community Use Agreement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Community Use Agreement shall apply to the rugby pitch and sports pavilion facilities and shall include details of pricing policy, hours of use, access by non-educational establishment users/non-members, management responsibilities, a mechanism for review and a programme for implementation.

Thereafter, the approved Community Use Agreement shall be implemented upon the start of use of the development and shall be complied with for the duration of the use of the development.

REASON: To secure well managed and safe community access to the rugby pitch and sports pavilion facilities, to ensure sufficient community benefit to the development of sport and to accord with HDC Local Plan Policies.”

4.12 Stoughton Airfield Consulted because of the 18m floodlights proposed on high land. No comments received. Now judged to be superfluous as floodlights removed from proposal.

4.13 University Hospitals of Leicester Originally requested £33,763, based on 226 new residents.

The applicant contested this in their ‘S106 Consultation Response’ document. UHL has accepted the applicant’s argument that the figure should be based on 120 new residents. However, UHL has not accepted the applicant’s postulation that “A discount should be applied per person based on C2 use rather than C3 use to take account of the fact that a degree of medical care is going to be provided at the facility.”

In the same vein that education contributions are not being sought for the Outline scheme, it could conversely be argued that there should be an uplift in the contributions towards healthcare as there are likely to be higher levels of dependency and need amongst the proposed residents (across the range of healthcare services). By definition, the proposal is to provide “extra” care. The requirement for, free-cost of and right to access public healthcare services (rather than private healthcare) remains for residents. UHL has adopted what is considered to be a balanced approach – neither uplift nor discount.

“The contribution in the amount £17,959.00 sought will go towards the gap in the funding created by each potential patient from this development in respect of A&E and planned care.”

The applicant has confirmed their agreement to this contribution (email 06/11/2019 @14:30).

The bespoke nature of this specific care scheme appears to impact on opinions about this matter, with UHL contesting that their contribution request is CIL compliant. It is not presently determined that the request is necessary to make the development acceptable, although the applicant’s agreement to the contribution is noted.

4.14 Woodland Trust “Thank you for providing the Trust with further information on the adjacent area of woodland; if there is evidence to suggest that the woodland was planted, then the Trust is willing to withdraw our comments on this development. Has Natural England’s opinion on the woodland been sought at all by the applicants, as the statutory body for the ancient woodland inventory?”

------

4.15 Leicester City Council

Final comments have been provided by Leicester City Council following the submission of amended plans/information by the applicant (which includes the applicant’s ‘Response to Sport England Comments’ document 03.09.19). In that document the applicant outlines how they have modified the proposed use of the athletics facility:

“Leicester Grammar School (LGS) proposes the construction of a grass athletics track with in-field sports for their own circular/sports use. Currently the school does not have any dedicated track and field sport facilities. At present the nature of the existing LGS site is multi-use, due to the lack of space for single use facilities. There is currently no jumping provision at the school and the existing cricket space has to be utilised for throwing events. Existing running provision is limited to a 200m grassed area, which prevents school pupils from being able to fully engage with athletics.

The proposed athletic track is being provided to meet the needs of LGS only, and will not be available to the public or other athletics clubs. The new sports facility proposals are not intended to impact on local sporting facilities in the area, and the school does not intend to provide publicly available synthetic athletics track that would compete with Saffron Lane or nearby facilities.”

In response, Leicester City Council has commented:

“Following review of the submitted information the City Council considers that the proposal will not unduly impact upon Saffron Lane Sports facility as it stands so has no objection to the application. Should proposals be brought forward in the future which significantly change the nature and proposed use of the athletics facility, it would be appreciated if the city Council could be consulted upon the proposals at that time.”

4.16 Leicestershire Police Detailed comments returned, including:

“Consideration of the use of CCTV at main vehicle and pedestrian entry points is recommended. In this case part of the site including sporting facilities will not be in use overnight making security in this area more important due to the lack of natural observation within the close proximity. Also the 60 bed care facility and 34 bungalows are likely to contain vulnerable people needing medical support with elderly residents a high proportion of occupants of the bungalows.”

“General Recommendations

1. Street lighting columns to BS 5489 are recommended. 2. Appropriate fencing should be used to enclose the perimeter and is recommended to be 1.8m in height. This can be via planting or manufactured fencing. 3. Key access points leading into the development should be considered for CCTV coverage supported by lighting to allow identification during day and night. This would allow vehicle and facial recognition in key areas. Appropriate signage should be in place to be compliant with the Data Protection Act. 4. Lampposts at vehicle entry points recommended to have electrical spur to allow power supply for CCTV. 5. Natural surveillance should be possible via ground level foliage being trimmed to 1m high and trees to have no foliage lower than 2m from the ground to allow a clear field of vision.

6. Vehicular parking is recommended to be in curtilage as part of the dwellings where possible. Communal parking should be supported by natural observation, lighting and be set in clearly defined areas to deter unauthorised access. 7. Consideration of Secured by Design principles is recommended and information in respect to the different standards is available on request. 8. Opportunities to explore the potential for S106/CIL funding should be undertaken with relevant parties if appropriate. 9. Dwellings are recommended to have an Alarm System to BS7958 with coverage of garages included where applicable. 10. Commercial sites may benefit from smoke cloaking devices to deter access and reduce potential loss.”

------

4.17 Leicestershire County Council Adult Social Care Consulted. No comments received.

4.18 Leicestershire County Council Archaeology Extracts of comments:

“I can confirm that the applicant’s submitted Desk-based assessment (WYG A090070-456 May 2019) provides an adequate assessment of the known archaeological assets within and in the immediate vicinity of the application area (in accordance with NPPF para 189).

…

The proposals include operations that may destroy any buried archaeological remains that are present, but the archaeological implications cannot be adequately assessed on the basis of the currently available information. Without the information that such an Assessment would provide, it would be difficult in our view for the planning authority to assess the archaeological implications of the proposals. In that context should your authority be minded to refuse this application, the lack of archaeological information should be an additional reason for refusal, to ensure the archaeological potential is given future consideration.”

4.19 Leicestershire County Council Civic Amenities (waste disposal) “The nearest Civic Amenity Site to the proposed development is located at Oadby and residents of the proposed development are likely to use this site. The Civic Amenity Site at Oadby will be able to meet the demands of the proposed development within the current site thresholds without the need for further development and therefore no contribution is required on this occasion.”

4.20 Leicestershire County Council Ecology A range of comments have been received

25.07.19 “I have no objections in principle to this; the land is currently in arable use, and therefore of low ecology value. I do have holding objections pending three things:

1. Submission of the badger survey report; 2. Provision of detailed landscape plans for the full application (the Sports development); and 3. Revision of the lighting strategy to reduce light spill onto ecological receptors (bat and badger habitats.)

The layout is acceptable. The majority of hedges and trees and woodland belt are being retained; these habitats have local value. One short length of hedge (H8 in the ecology report) along the northern boundary is species-rich and likely to meet local wildlife site criteria, and is therefore of County-wide value; it is being retained. Some individual trees are mature and approaching veteran status, including an oak (T079) described in the Arb. report as 'outstanding'; it also is being retained. This tree and another large oak nearby (T085) are also likely to meet LWS criteria, and the retention of these trees and the hedge, and future conservation, should be a planning condition.

The ecology report is satisfactory; although as it covers a much larger area than the application site it is a bit misleading. Although bat roosts were present in the farm buildings to the north, they are unlikely to be directly affected by the proposals. A high level of bat foraging activity was recorded, but in general terms continuity of foraging routes is being retained, with only minor breaks for access.

Foraging routes are vulnerable to impacts from new lighting sources, such as sports pitch floodlighting, and I am concerned over the impact of lighting on bat foraging along Chestnut Drive and tree belt, hedges etc. Given the importance of these routes, especially Chestnut Drive and the parallel tree belt next to the grammar school (W1 and H5 in the Ecology report), I recommend a planning condition requiring light spill / horizontal illuminance along these receptors to be no more than 1lux, unless agreed in writing by the LPA. The submitted horizontal illuminance plan is therefore not acceptable; it shows light spill of over 5 lux to east and west of the athletic track. This needs to be revisited and attempts made to shield or reduce lighting to a more acceptable level. In addition, the columns appear very tall – 18m is indicated on one of the plans. This places them at the height of many trees. Bats normally forage below canopies or alongside. I think the impacts of these very tall and unshielded lights will be high. The lighting over the badger setts may also be a problem, without some additional screening – please refer to section 6.2.5 top of p18, of the Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy. I have a holding objection pending revision of the lighting plans.

Several great crested newt ponds were present in the wider area, but only one is potentially impacted directly by the proposed care home, which is the outline part of the overall development. The pond is near London Rd. An environmental DNA survey was done, which is the minimum possible, rather than a full survey programme. This is acceptable for the purposes of an outline application, given that the Masterplan indicates that there should be plenty of room to mitigate for impacts within the site. However, for the reserved matters application, full GCN surveys to national standards to determine population size and a mitigation plan must be submitted up-front; the care home development is likely to need an EPS licence from Natural England.

I note in passing, however, that these ponds are NOT shown on the layout plan; this must be an oversight, and that the landscape plans show that part of this area is allocated for a SUDS pond; this may not be possible or acceptable and is in potential conflict with the Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy which allocates this area for GCN mitigation.

I have still not been provided with the full documentation for this site; the badger survey report referred to as Appendix F is not on your website. The biodiversity mitigation strategy includes a constraints plan showing two setts in the SW part of the site, within the tree belt just north of the grammar school. I have no details on the

21 significance or status of these setts. However, they do not appear to be directly affected by the proposal, as there is plenty of buffer room between these setts and the sports development. I therefore have no substantive objection to the development on the basis of impacts on badger but have a holding objection pending submission of the badger report and a specific mitigation plan. The recommendation in the biodiversity mitigation strategy are quite general. It is likely that there will need to be a specific planning condition related to badgers, but in the absence of this report I cannot recommend wording or content for the conditions. However, I do recommend as a condition that an update badger survey is done prior to implementation of the full and outline parts of the application.

A Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy has been submitted, but the recommendations in this have not been carried though into the landscape plan, which is minimal in its detail. I have a further holding objection pending submission of landscape plans that show details of habitat creation etc associated with the full part of the hybrid application – the sports development. The landscape details associated with the outline part – the care-home etc. – can wait until the reserved matters. The recommendations in the Biodiversity Mitigation strategy are satisfactory and should be referred to in conditions.

A small but significant error exists in the documentation of the Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy. The hedge parallel to Chestnut Drive, to the west, is shown as an important hedgerow. The ecology reports refers to this hedge (H6 and H6a) as not important.”

15.08.19 “I have now received full details of the badger surveys carried out on site, which were very comprehensive and are satisfactory.

…

Therefore, the submitted mitigation plan in its entirety cannot be referred to in planning condition; instead, I recommend that the Good Practice Measures in 6.5 are the subject of a condition. In additional, as planning condition, badger surveys and mitigation plans should be updated prior to site clearance/soil stripping for each two phases of development. The surveys are already 2 years old, and given the exceptionally high level of badger activity, it is likely that new setts may be opened or outliers become more significant.”

Comments received concerning whether the tree belts on the site qualify as ancient woodland:

29.08.19 “It is very unlikely to be ancient semi-natural woodland; the evidence points towards a mature plantation. Leicestershire is a County with relatively little ancient woodland. I don’t think there is any need for a discussion with Natural England, as suggested by the Woodland Trust.”

Various reconsultation comments:

12.09.19 “I have no further comments, and maintain a holding objection. I have previously asked for revision to the lighting plan to reduce impacts on badgers, bats and the woodland, but as far as I am aware this has not been done.”

24.09.19

“I think the ball-stop fencing looks OK.” (The LCC Officer does not consider that it would harm ecological interests).

Following the applicant’s withdrawal of the floodlighting on 14.10.19, concerns over light spill have now fallen away.

Regarding outstanding objections:

16.10.19 “I’ve checked my previous comments now, made on 25th July:

“[The Great Crested Newt pond off London Rd] is NOT shown on the layout plan; this must be an oversight, and that the landscape plans show that part of this area is allocated for a SUDS pond; this may not be possible or acceptable and is in potential conflict with the Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy which allocates this area for GCN mitigation… A Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy has been submitted, but the recommendations in this have not been carried though into the landscape plan, which is minimal in its detail.”

I think the issue regarding the SUDS/GCN pond needs to be resolved at this stage, as it is a fundamental point. I’m nervous of leaving this to condition, as we have two incompatible proposals here: GCN mitigation, as set out in the Biodiversity Strategy, and SUDS pond. The landscape plan should clearly show how this will be addressed.”

01.11.19 “The conflicts in the Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy and Landscape Strategy have now been removed through submission of a revised Landscape Parameters Plan (Dwg Nº: A090070-456_104 Rev:5.). This is acceptable, with appropriate conditions regarding provision of landscape details in line with GCN mitigation plan.

This removes my final holding objection.”

4.21 Leicestershire County Council Education “An education contribution will not be requested for this site as it is an extra care facility with associated bungalows.”

4.22 Leicestershire County Council Forestry & Arboriculture Officer A site visit has been undertaken to assess tree suitability for inclusion in a preservation order (TPO) for trees that are located on and around the site boundaries with London Road and Chestnut Drive. Detailed TPO (TEMPO) assessments have been submitted. In summary, this has found:

“G1 • Several groups of young trees; ash and pine. • Trees stand in shrub beds which are directly adjacent to Chestnut Drive – possible roadside planting scheme. • TEMPO = 15; TPO defensible.

G2 • Group of fifteen mature trees; Corsican pine, English oak, common ash, Scots pine. • Understory of young/small trees (larch, sycamore, ash, holly, rose…etc.). • TEMPO = 23; Definitely merits TPO.

G3 • Group of four mature trees; Corsican pine, English oak. • TEMPO = 20; Definitely merits TPO.

G4 • Group of five mature trees; English oak, common ash. • TEMPO = 20; Definitely merits TPO.

G5 • Group of two mature English oak. • TEMPO = 19; Definitely merits TPO.

G6 • Group of ash and sycamore suckers. • TEMPO = 11; Does not merit TPO.

G7 • Group of fourteen mature trees; Corsican pine, English oak, common ash. • Gap within group at south eastern end, two stumps (4m+ tall) within gap. • TEMPO = 22; Definitely merits TPO.

To afford a level of statutory protection HDC might consider placing a tree preservation order on suitable specimens within the following tree groups: G2, G3, G4, G5 & G7. • There is an amount of remedial tree which might be required, to address certain health and safety issues found on the trees. • This is most notable for a large, mature ash in G4. The tree lost a large limb in the upper canopy several years ago. An aerial inspection and suitable remedial pruning would be considered prescient.

• Tree group 1 could be considered worthy of inclusion in a TPO. • Tree group 6 is not worthy of inclusion in a TPO. The trees are mostly young, self- set, multi-stemmed specimens, with limited visible aspect.

Plans associated with 19/00862/OUT indicated the creation of a new access road between Chestnut Dr and the site. This would involve the removal of several mature specimen trees in G2, at least three of which would be considered as category A (Trees of high quality) in the associated BS 5837 survey. The proposed road would also fragment G2, disrupting its cohesive nature and having a detrimental impact on bio-diversity.

There is an existing access between G2 and G3. Utilising the existing access would negate the need to remove high quality trees and cause fracture of a linear tree group.”

Officer comment: As a consequence, it has been determined that a temporary TPO be investigated on suitable specimens within tree groups G2, G3, G4, G5 & G7. This Order has been initiated.

4.23 Leicestershire County Council Green Infrastructure Team Consulted. No comments received.

4.24 Leicestershire County Council Highway Authority (LCC HA)

“The Local Highway Authority (LHA) advice is that, in its view, the impacts of the development on highway safety would not be unacceptable, and when considered cumulatively with other developments, the impacts on the road network would not be severe. Based on the information provided, the development therefore does not conflict with paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), subject to the conditions and planning obligations outlined in this report.”

4.25 Leicestershire County Council, Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) “Subsequent to the two previous LLFA responses, the applicant has submitted a statement confirming that the outfall for surface water drainage to the sports pitches is within developer control. General design principles have also been submitted outlining the surface water drainage strategy, with a note confirming that detailed designs are to be submitted to the LPA before works start.

Leicestershire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) advises the Local Planning Authority (LPA) that the proposals are considered acceptable to the LLFA and we advise the following planning conditions be attached to any permission granted.”

4 planning conditions and respective condition notes are recommended by the LLFA.

4.26 Leicestershire County Council Library Services “The proposed development on London Road is within 1.25 km* of Great Glen Library on Ruperts Way, being the nearest local library facility which would serve the development site.” (*1.25kms is “straight line distance”.)

“…in order to provide the additional materials required to meet the needs of the increased population Leicestershire Library Services requires a contribution of £1,930 (rounded up to the nearest £10).”

Following a query by the applicant in their ‘S106 Contribution Response’ document, the contribution has been recalculated to accord with the applicant’s figures. Following re-consultation, LCC now state:

“The request is based on the following formula for library facilities contributions 77x 1 bedroom houses/apartments @ £15.09 per house/apartment 17x 2+ bedroom houses/apartments @ £30.18 per house/apartment … Leicestershire Library Services requires a contribution of £1,670.” This has been rounded down to the nearest £10. This figure accords with the applicant’s 29.08.19 ‘Section 106 Contributions Response’ and 06/11/2019 @14:30 email agreement to the contribution.

------

4.27 HDC Affordable Housing Provision (Housing Enabling and Community Infrastructure Officer) “The development proposals comprise a sixty bed care home and thirty four bungalows. Has the applicant undertaken any independent needs assessment to determine this location in Great Glen as being the best location for this facility? I am concerned about the location of the proposed facility and do not consider it to be suitable for such a facility and this is even more the case from an affordable housing perspective. However should this application proceed to determination I will add further that:

The applicant asserts that the two elements are principally connected in their C2 classification and therefore should not be subject to S106 and affordable housing obligations.

We assert that the two elements are not principally connected in their C2 use classification as suggested by the applicant. Therefore, the council can seek an affordable housing contribution on the basis that the 34 bungalows fall within the C3 use Class and C3 units would count towards housing supply. Over 55s provision is not exempt from S106 obligations. This appears to be a bungalow scheme earmarked for over 55s and HDC will seek all obligations inc AH.

Harborough will always seek onsite provision in negotiating its affordable housing requirement, however given my concerns about the proposed location of this facility I am minded on this occasion to seek an off site contribution (Commuted Sum) towards affordable housing.

Commuted Sums are used by Local Authorities as an alternative to the provision of affordable housing units if the authority determines that it is not appropriate to seek affordable units on site. A commuted sum either takes the form of alternative land held by the developer, or more frequently a capital sum. Capital Sums can then be used to finance affordable housing development elsewhere in the District, in suitable locations.

In calculating a commuted sum Harborough District Council adopts the following approach. The Council will advise of affordable properties which would have been required (40% of 34 units = 14 units). The Council will then agree the Open Market Value (OMV) that could be expected for these dwellings having regard to the advice of local estate agents / interrogation of property sites i.e Right Move to determine values of like sold properties in that locality. The level of contribution required approximates to the difference between the OMV and the maximum price that an RP could pay. We take this to be an average of 50% of OMV X the Policy requirement of affordable units, which in this case will be 14 affordable units.

We will calculate the commuted sum required should this application be determined and the amount will be secured alongside other S106 obligations via a S106 agreement.”

4.28 HDC Community Facilities £111,390 is requested towards projects in the Parish of Great Glen or facilities in a neighbouring parish in close proximity to the proposed development (5 mile radius). “Project to be confirmed after the time of obligation receipt. On receipt, money will be allocated through Harborough District Council’s robust, CIL compliant grant process (projects are scored against CIL compliance criteria).”

The applicant has objected to this sum in their ‘S106 Contributions Response’ document (29.08.19):

“Principle – Accepted.

Quantum – The assumption of 3 bed, 2.3 residents is not appropriate for this development.

The calculation should be based on: • 60 x 1 bed/1 person dwellings • 17 x 1 bed/1.5 person dwellings

• 17 x 2 bed/2 person dwellings.

Contribution should not apply to 60 extra care residents to take account of the community space within the extra care building. A discount of 50% should be applied to bungalow residents since the community facility will be on-site and accessible.

Total Contribution = £15,450”

It is accepted that the 60 bed extra care building portion of the contribution should be based on 60 persons occupying 60 bedrooms (and not 60x 3 bed dwellings at 2.30 assumed residents per unit – 138 total residents). However, there is no substantive evidence that the residents of the 60 bed extra care building would not access, or benefit from, off site community spaces/facilities. The cohort of residents would be unlikely to be working/employed; many would benefit from trips and activities that they can engage with. It is reasonable to assume that they would wish to travel to use other facilities (rather than just their own on site communal lounge / dining / etc. spaces), in order to integrate with the wider community in the village of Great Glen and beyond, if only for a change of scenery and to escape the confines of the building. The applicant’s assertion that the contribution should not apply to the 60 extra care residents is not accepted. However, the on site facility within the 60 bed building would have a tangible benefit on the residents of the main building – its primary function is to serve the needs of the 60 bed residents. It is judged to be reasonable to attach some reduction to the public S106 CF request given the proposed provision within the 60 bed care building and the less-mobile nature of the proposed residents. However, this is balanced against their likely non-working status and greater free time of residents to use community facilities – daily routines operate with some structure and there is no evidence that part of such daily/weekly structures would not rely on public community facility infrastructure outside the site. The applicant’s assertion that the “Contribution should not apply to 60 extra care residents to take account of the community space within the extra care building” (‘S106 Contributions Response’ document, p.2) is not considered to be reasonable. In light of the submitted evidence and in seeking to take a balanced approach to this matter, a 50% reduction is judged to be reasonable.

The applicant, in their ‘S106 Contributions Response’ (29.08.19), argues that they would provide 17x 1 bedroom dwelling and 17x 2 bedroom dwellings. Permission is sought for up to 34 bungalows. If granted without a restrictive housing mix condition they could, for example, all be 2 bedroom bungalows. If granted with a Condition** that 17 bungalows should be 1 bedroom and 17 should be 2 bedroom, the applicant’s assertion that calculations should be based on 17 x 1 bed/1.5 person dwellings and 17 x 2 bed/2 person dwellings appears reasonable. As per the HDC CF Officer’s figures, this would be 17x £773 (£13,141) + 17x £1,030 (£17,510) = £30,651.

**As an alternative to a condition, a S106 agreement could be worded in a flexible tabulated format to accommodate different sized bungalows.

It is not agreed that “A discount of 50% should be applied to bungalow residents since the community facility will be on-site and accessible.” Unlike the 60 bed care building residents, many in the cohort of bungalow residents would likely still be working/employed. If the bungalows were a retirement age scheme only, the applicant may opt to seek an age condition which equates to statutory male and female retirement ages (age 65-67, depending on when a person is born and the date of retirement). While bungalow residents may have access to the additional space/facility in the main building, they would have equal access to all other community facilities outside the site and just as much propensity to use such facilities

as average residents (it is hoped this will be the case if they are to remain active within wider community/society/village environs. It is noted that propensity to access Great Glen is restricted by access distances and routes, which, it is considered, are not conducive to non-car borne trips). There is not judged to be a reasonable and tangible case to reduce the community facility request for the 34 bungalows.

In the HDC CF Officers comments, there are no figures for extra care bedrooms which would contain a maximum 1 resident per room. It is noted that the “charge per dwelling” is based on a “per person charge of £515”. Therefore, a 1 bedroom 1 person charge would be £515 per unit. Accordingly, the 60 bedrooms would generate a contribution of 60x £515 ÷ 2 = £15,450.

In conclusion, a reasonable total community facilities contribution is judged to be:

£15,450 + £30,651 = £46,101.

The HDC Community Facilities Officer has read the above and stated that it appears to be reasonable.

The applicant has confirmed their agreement to this contribution (email 06/11/2019 @14:30).

4.29 HDC Conservation Officer “The proposed access to this development appears to cut across the historic drive to Stretton Hall a grade II* listed building.

The southernmost section of the drive which was located to the east of Chestnut Drive on the other side of the former lodge.

The trees are likely a remnant of historic landscaping and have a historic association with the Hall, as such they could be considered [to be] non-designated heritage assets as a landscape feature.

As such, I would ask that any harm to these trees is minimised as part of this development.”

4.30 HDC Environmental Services (Contaminated Land and Air Quality Officer) Due to the findings of the WYG Environment Planning Transport Limited Stretton Hall Farm, Great Glen Geo-Environmental Desk Study Report A090070-456 Homes England, November 2018 the permission should be conditioned (two conditions: Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment and Completion/Verification Investigation Report).

The applicant has agreed to the pre-development nature of the Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment condition.

4.31 HDC Environmental Services (Environmental Health Officer) “This department makes no comments or observations in relation to the outline application of the development.

I would however like to see more information on the mitigation scheme for the proposed sports hub on both the external and internal noise that occupants of the proposed residential care homes may experience within the FUL application.”

4.32 HDC Neighbourhood & Green Spaces Officer

Extract of 03.07.19 comments which accompanied a request for £71,005.60:

“It is anticipated that the extra care facility will not attract a requirement for S106 contributions towards open space.

There will however be a requirement to provide for off site contributions towards outdoor sport facility improvements in Great Glen, as per the Playing Pitch Strategy, for the 34 bungalows that are proposed.

The PPS identifies requirements acoustic fencing at Great Glen Tennis Club and improved facilities for the Great Glen cricket club.

The proposed inclusion of a new pitch and running track at the school cannot be considered as mitigation measures for the development. There is no strategic need identified in the Playing Pitch Strategy or the emerging Built Facilities Strategy for either a new pitch or running track. While the outdoor sports facilities may be required for the school curriculum, there are other priorities that require support. …

If the new pitch and running track are proposed to be used by the wider community, further information will be required from the developer concerning hours of operation, terms of use and potential users.

The contributions are set out below. Most of the POS typologies can be provided as part of the landscape scheme.

Additional contributions will be required for improvements to the sustainable transport system to include walking and cycling into Great Glen and for additional burial space and/or improvements to the existing cemeteries and burial grounds.”

Final revised comments dated 30.09.19 request a contribution totalling £58,986.00. This is a reduced figure which accepts some of the case put forward by the applicant in their 29.08.19 ‘Section 106 Contributions Response’. The applicant has confirmed their agreement to this contribution (email 06/11/2019 @14:30).

Separately, Officers consider that a Landscape Management Plan Condition should be added if approval is resolved, to include the long term maintenance proposals for all POS.

4.33 HDC Principal Planning Policy Officer Consulted for specific advice regarding the applicant’s submission on the Use Class C2 / C3 matter, Local Plan policy wording and national policy/guidance on this matter. Comments are provided in full in Section 6(a) of this report below.

4.34 HDC Technical Services (Drainage Engineer) Consulted. No comments received.

4.35 HDC Waste Consulted. No comments received.

------

4.36 Great Glen Parish Council “Object strongly”

Key concerns:

• Significant policy conflict; • Noise and light pollution; • Scale – the buildings will be too prominent on a raised site, with a permanently lit car park; • Concern about traffic impacts and access details for the extra care facility due to insufficient detail; • Extra care facility and bungalows – it is an isolated site, distant from shops and other village facilities.

Further comments submitted following re-consultation, including:

“We have grave concerns that this will become a small satellite village isolated from the main village with potentially eventually its own facilities. Which will involve additional building, additional traffic which will be needed to serve these additional requirements.

To summarise we strongly object to both of these proposals.”

4.37 Ward Councillors Mahal and Hallam Concerns stated with regard to harm to the following interests:

• Environmental; loss of farmland; high buildings on high land; • Wildlife; disturbance from light and noise; • Residential amenity disturbance; • Highways; lack of parking proposed; • Unsuitable location for extra care facilities; remote from local shops and other amenities; • Damage to woodland.

4.38 County Councillor Feltham (Gartree Division) Objects:

• The access off Chestnut Drive, potential for overspill visitor cars being parked on Chestnut Drive, and the unsustainability of the proposed extra care home outweigh the sporting benefits; • Is there a need for this scale of extra care facility at this location, given its lack of access to local amenities such as shops, library and doctors’ surgery and because of the closure of a smaller care facility at Brookfields due to a lack of demand. No evidence has been provided of the demand for such a facility in this area when adult social care policies now support elderly people living in their own home with care provided in their own premises or for support by family members. • Lack of information for LCC HA; • Lack of information for Flood Authority; • Scale – a three storey facility at this location is too high and would be visible from many miles away. • Noise – I have concerns about crowd noise from the sport facilities imposing on the neighbourhood. b) Public Representations

4.39 One letter of support has been received, commenting:

• When Leicester Grammar School moved to Great Glen over ten years ago, they made it clear that their future plans would involve the expansion of the facilities of their site to include further sports fields and facilities. • The social care element should be supported. Successive Government cuts to social care have marginalised the elderly in our community and there is little by the way of modern, forward thinking provision of housing for them. Such homes and care facilities are needed in a civilised, caring society and should be encouraged here.

4.40 The application has generated a significant level of public objection responses – approximately 225. Synopsis of objections:

• Principle of development unacceptable – site is outside the boundary of the Rural Centre of Great Glen • Unsustainable location for care home and bungalows • Care facility would be isolated from doctors’ surgery and other community facilities in Great Glen or Oadby direction • Lack of need for the extra care facility and the sports facilities • Residents observe that a care facility was recently closed in Great Glen village and that this points to a lack of need for the proposed facility • Height of buildings excessive and would dominate the local landscape as it is on the highest point of the Sence Valley • Design of buildings will not be in keeping • Overdevelopment of the site • Landscape harm – would harm the intrinsic value and rural character • Would reduce the green gap between the edge of Leicester and Great Glen • 18m height of floodlights is harmful • Loss of green space, trees and hedges • Ecology harm • Loss of high quality farmland • Light pollution (from floodlights and lit car parks etc.) • Noise pollution • Loss of tranquillity • Litter pollution • Air quality pollution & physical and mental health detriment • Higher Carbon Dioxide emissions • Chestnut Drive should be lined with trees • Increased hours of use (e.g., athletics starting guns) • Security & crime impacts, including rise in vandalism • Safeguarding of children issues • Construction phase disruption • Loss-of-privacy from Sports Pavilion viewing galleries • Highway safety harm, including deficiencies in the applicant’s traffic surveys, issues with the local highway network (particularly Chestnut Drive & in winter), a lack of proposed parking and potential obstructions to local residents and emergency vehicles • Sports facility can care home will attract traffic volumes and types which the local village is not equipped to deal with • There is inadequate public transport systems to the venue • Poorly maintained footpaths & pavements in the locality are not suitable for care home / bungalow occupiers, other users

• Internal pathways are inadequate for the maintenance vehicles that will be required for the ground work and potentially for the access to the entertainment suite • LGS allow little to no use of its facilities - insufficient clarity on commitment to the community • No benefit to local community • Negative disturbance to the pub and hotel business, reducing their trade and using their car parks

Non-planning concerns • Negative effect on property values

A further 2 part submission has been received from the ‘Stretton Hall Residents Working Group’ (a text objection document and an accompanying photo document). This assesses the application in some detail against policies and various subjects, including:

• the lack of need for an extra care facility in this location; • the unsuitability of the location for an extra care facility; • environmental impacts; • highway safety concerns; • similar review of concerns about LGS proposals and existing site operations.

Members are referred online to all public comments.

4.41 Member of Parliament Neil O'Brien has submitted an objection comment, stating:

“Having spoken with many local residents and with local councillors on this, I cannot support this application for the following reasons:

1) Concerns with traffic and congestion

The existing road network already faces significant pressures linked to the vehicles to/from Leicester Grammar School (LGS). These pressures will be exacerbated with increased car volumes and have a significant impact on already stretched roads such as Chestnut Drive. This was seen recently during the science fair held at LGS, where a large number of cars parked on Chestnut Drive, causing issues and congestion for local residents of the Stretton Hall housing estate. The overflow car park situated at the top of the development would also contribute to this congestion, with it's only access route being on Chestnut Drive. The plan to hold national school sports events suggests much a larger number of vehicles would be likely to be using this road, which is poorly suited. Access from chestnut drive is not suitable.

2) Landscape impact

The care home is much higher than anything nearby and is likely to be visible for a long distance given its positioning. I understand the facility has also been placed at the highest point of the field, which means it will be visible from an even greater distance.

3) Location of care facility

I have concerns regarding the suitability of the location, given its lack of access to local amenities. A care facility for older people in the centre of the village was

recently closed. This facility had good access to various shops, a post office, cafe, churches and the parish council. The new facility is being opened shortly following the closure of the previous one, but in a location from which it is unlikely that residents will be able to walk to these facilities. In making the case for Brookfields to be re-purposed for disabled people it was argued that there was no longer demand for such housing for older people in the area. The out-of-village location will create additional pressures on the road network due to an increased need for cars to be able to access local shops, post office and cafes.

4) Light pollution

A number of residents have raised concerns with the planned floodlighting of the new sports facilities and their impact on nearby homes.

Due to the concerns raised by local residents that I share, I object to this application.”

5. Planning Policy Considerations

5.1 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 instructs that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan (DP), unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 The policies relevant to this application are set out below. More detail is provided in the “Common Planning Policy” section above.

a) Development Plan

5.3 The DP for Harborough comprises:

• The Harborough Local Plan, adopted April 2019; and

• The Great Glen Neighbourhood Plan, adopted November 2017 (it is noted that the Plan has gone through review and is due to go to referendum January 2020. The substance of the Plan with regard to the current proposal remains fundamentally unchanged.)

5.4 Harborough Local Plan Key Policies:

• Policy SS1 The spatial strategy • Policy GD1 Achieving sustainable development • Policy GD2 Settlement development • Policy GD3 Development in the countryside • Policy GD4 New housing in the countryside • Policy GD5 Landscape character • Policy GD8 Good design in development • Policy H1 Provision of new housing • Policy H2 Affordable housing • Policy H4 Specialist housing • Policy H5 Housing density, mix and standards • Policy BE1 Provision of new business development • Policy HC1 Built heritage • Policy HC2 Community facilities

• Policy GI2 Open space, sport and recreation • Policy GI5 Biodiversity and geodiversity • Policy CC3 Managing flood risk • Policy CC4 Sustainable drainage • Policy IN1 Infrastructure provision • Policy IN2 Sustainable transport • Policy IN3 Electronic connectivity

5.5 Great Glen Neighbourhood Plan Key Policies:

• Policy GG1 Housing Provision Windfall Sites • Policy GG2 Housing Mix • Policy GG3 Affordable Housing • Policy GG4 Design Quality • Policy GG5 Local Heritage Assets • Policy GG6 Employment and Business Development • Policy GG8 Community Buildings and Facilities • Policy GG12 Public Open Space • Policy GG13 Biodiversity • Policy GG14 Important Trees and Hedges • Policy GG15 Footpaths and Cycleways • Policy GG16 Energy Efficiency • Policy GG19 Access Design for New Development • Policy GG20 Traffic Impact

The Great Glen Neighbourhood Plan review process is noted. The revised plan has been through examination. HDC Cabinet has accepted all the Examiner’s recommended modifications and approved the referendum for 23rd January 2020. Therefore, the Plan has virtually full weight for determining planning applications and the amended policies should be considered.

The revised plan reinstates Great Glen’s Limits to Development and reinforces that development outside those limits should be treated as countryside development. To this end, newly inserted Policy GG2 ‘Settlement Boundary’ is noted. Following the removal of the Limits to Development through the deletion of the Core Strategy and retained 2001 Local Plan policies (and the introduction of the new Harborough Local Plan in April 2019), the opportunity has been taken to update the Settlement Boundary for Great Glen to incorporate recent planning approvals, the housing allocation through the Neighbourhood Plan and to distinguish between the different approaches to development within the built-up area and the countryside.

Newly inserted Policy GG19 ‘Important View and Skylines’ is noted. This reflects new community consultation results and new environmental inventory results. “Important view 1” is noted (and accompanying Figure 14): “From the gateway at the highest point of the parish on Oaks Road (footpath C13) west over the village to the skyline.” This takes in views of parts of the Leicester Grammar School campus and the application site.

b) Material Planning Considerations

5.6 Material considerations include any matter relevant to the application which has a bearing on the use or development of land. The material considerations to be taken in to account when considering this application include the DP referred to above, the

National Planning Policy Framework, the national Planning Policy Guidance, further materially relevant legislation, policies and guidance, appeal decisions, planning case law and high court judgements, together with responses from consultees and representations received from all other interested parties in relation to material planning matters. Some key documents are listed below.

5.7 The National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework / NPPF)

Please see the “Common Planning Policy” section above for planning policy considerations that apply to all agenda items.

5.8 The National Planning Policy Framework Glossary, which defines:

“Older people

People over or approaching retirement age, including the active, newly-retired through to the very frail elderly; and whose housing needs can encompass accessible, adaptable general needs housing through to the full range of retirement and specialised housing for those with support or care needs.”

“People with disabilities

People have a disability if they have a physical or mental impairment, and that impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. These persons include, but are not limited to, people with ambulatory difficulties, blindness, learning difficulties, autism and mental health needs.”

5.9 National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

A section called “Housing for older and disabled people” was added on 26.06.2019, which “Guides councils in preparing planning policies on housing for older and disabled people”. Pertinent extracts include:

“Why is it important to plan for the housing needs of older people?

Offering older people a better choice of accommodation to suit their changing needs can help them live independently for longer, feel more connected to their communities and help reduce costs to the social care and health systems.” (Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 63-001-20190626)

“Specialist housing for older people

What are the different types of specialist housing for older people?

There are different types of specialist housing designed to meet the diverse needs of older people, which can include:

Age-restricted general market housing: This type of housing is generally for people aged 55 and over and the active elderly. It may include some shared amenities such as communal gardens, but does not include support or care services.

Retirement living or sheltered housing: This usually consists of purpose-built flats or bungalows with limited communal facilities such as a lounge, laundry room and guest room. It does not generally provide care services, but provides some support to

enable residents to live independently. This can include 24 hour on-site assistance (alarm) and a warden or house manager.

Extra care housing or housing-with-care: This usually consists of purpose-built or adapted flats or bungalows with a medium to high level of care available if required, through an onsite care agency registered through the Care Quality Commission (CQC). Residents are able to live independently with 24 hour access to support services and staff, and meals are also available. There are often extensive communal areas, such as space to socialise or a wellbeing centre. In some cases, these developments are known as retirement communities or villages - the intention is for residents to benefit from varying levels of care as time progresses.

Residential care homes and nursing homes: These have individual rooms within a residential building and provide a high level of care meeting all activities of daily living. They do not usually include support services for independent living. This type of housing can also include dementia care homes.

There is a significant amount of variability in the types of specialist housing for older people. The list above provides an indication of the different types of housing available, but is not definitive. Any single development may contain a range of different types of specialist housing.” (Paragraph: 010 Reference ID: 63-010-20190626)

“The location of housing is a key consideration for older people who may be considering whether to move (including moving to more suitable forms of accommodation). Factors to consider include the proximity of sites to good public transport, local amenities, health services and town centres.” (Paragraph: 013 Reference ID: 63-013-20190626)

“What factors should decision makers consider when assessing planning applications for specialist housing for older people?

Decision makers should consider the location and viability of a development when assessing planning applications for specialist housing for older people.” (Paragraph: 016 Reference ID: 63-016-20190626)

5.10 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Section 66

Section 66 relates to Listed assets. 66(1) states, inter alia: “In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.”

5.11 HDC Supplementary Planning Guidance

In March 2003, a series of guidance notes were adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) to the 2001 Harborough District Local Plan. They cover a range of topics, for example layout and design issues. The Council has saved/retained said SPGs.

The following retained SPGs Notes are considered to be most relevant:

• SPG Note 1: Design Principles to be Applied in Harborough District • SPG Note 2: Residential Development – Major Housing Sites

• SPG Note 4: Residential Development in the Countryside • SPG Note 6: Agricultural and Equestrian Buildings and Development for Sport and Recreation in the Countryside • SPG Note 9: Landscape and New Development • SPG Note 10: Trees and Development • SPG Note 11: Hedges and Development • SPG Note 13: Crime Prevention and Reduction • SPG Note 16: Requirements for the Provision of Land for Outdoor Play Space in New Residential Development • SPG Note 19: Development and Flood Risk

5.12 Cumulative Development Traffic Impact Study – Fleckney, Great Glen and the Kibworths (Jacobs, January 2017)

5.13 HDC Planning Obligations SPD (Jan 2017)

5.14 HDC Playing Pitch Strategy (Feb 2018)

5.15 HDC Built Sports Facility Strategy (draft; it is anticipated that the Strategy will be presented to Cabinet on 4th November 2019)

5.16 5 Year Housing Land Supply (5YS) Statement

The Council produces bi-annual monitoring reports on the level of housing supply within the District. These reports include a five year housing land supply calculation and a housing trajectory for the remainder of the DP period.

The most up-to-date report is the 2018/19 Full Year 5YS Position (dated 26 June 2019). This demonstrates that the Authority has a “5 Year Housing Land Supply, 01 Apr 2019 to 31 Mar 2024” of 7.04 years.

The District’s current positive 5YS does mean that the proposal garners additional positive weight based on a contribution which it may make to 5YS.

5.17 Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA; Jan 2017, Updated Nov 2017; GL Hearn). This document identifies general needs for the provision of various types of housing. It provides evidence about demographics, health, tenure, dwelling sizes and discusses ‘older person housing need’, ‘specialist housing’, ‘housing needs of people with disabilities’ and ‘C2 Registered Care Provision’.

The HEDNA also touches upon the ‘Leicestershire Accommodation Strategy for Older People’ at paras 9.30 to 9.34, which recognises that “schemes should allow people to maintain close links with local communities” and “should be mixed tenure to meet the diverse needs and financial resources of our ageing population.”

5.18 Harborough Local Plan Examination Matter “EXAM11 - Matter 4 - HDC - Specialist Housing Trajectory” (October 2018) https://www.harborough.gov.uk/downloads/file/4863/exam_11_-_matter_4_-_hdc_- _specialist_housing_trajectory

5.19 Environment and sustainability Health Technical Memorandum 07-07: Sustainable health and social care buildings ‘Planning, design, construction and refurbishment’ (Published 20 March 2013)

This Health Technical Memoranda (HTM 07-07) looks at sustainable design, construction and refurbishment of health and social care facilities.

For the location of new developments, HTM 07-07 references (at Para.5.200) the Institution of Highways & Transportation's (IHT) 'Guidelines for planning for public transport in developments', which recommends a walking distance of 400 m from the nearest bus stop and 800 m from the nearest railway station.

5.20 Institute of Highways and Transport “Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot” (2000)

5.21 Chartered Institute of Highways and Transport “Planning for Walking” (2015)

5.22 Rural Centres Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Capacity Study (July 2014; The Landscape Partnership)

The 2014 Study provides a detailed analysis of the landscape sensitivity and capacity of land around the edges of Rural Centre settlements, with a view to assessing potential suitability to accommodate future development.

The site lies outside the Study area. It was considered that the site was not sufficiently well related to the village of Great Glen to warrant assessment.

5.23 Harborough District Landscape Character Assessment (September 2007; Atkins)

This is a key background document to the 2014 Study.

On page 20 of the 2007 Assessment, it is noted with regard to “Urban Influence / Settlement Pattern”:

“Along the western edge of High Leicestershire the urban influence of Leicester city becomes far more apparent. Larger suburban centres that are more readily associated with Leicester city than the rural character of High Leicestershire are located in this area including Scraptoft, Bushby, Thurnby and Great Glen.”

d) Other Relevant Documents

5.24 The following documents should be noted:

• Housing White Paper “Fixing our broken housing market” (MHCLG, Feb 2017) • Housing for Older People (CLG Committee, Feb 2018) • The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, S.I. No.948 (as amended) • Circular 11/95 Annex A - Use of Conditions in Planning Permission • ODPM Circular 06/2005 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System) • Leicestershire County Council Planning Obligations Policy (July 2019) • Leicestershire County Council Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3) • Leicestershire County Council Highway Design Guide (April 2018) • Building Sustainable Transport into New Developments (DfT, 2008) • Manual for Streets (C&LG, DfT, 2007) and Manual for Streets 2 (CIHT, 2010) • Appeal Decisions, including Sidmouth, Devon (Dec 2017); the Planning Inspector offered some useful links to evidence and provides commentary on how the C2/C3 matter was considered in this case. Housing LIN offer some further commentary

on this case. In contrast, a Feb 2019 Inspector’s decision in Launceston found a proposal for retirement bungalows was C3 despite requiring two hours of care. The form and design of the development as separate bungalows seems to have been an important consideration in these cases, compared to a front door accessed from communal space. • The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987

e) Reason for Committee Decision

5.25 This application is to be determined by Planning Committee because of the size and nature of the proposed development (it is a “Major Application” Development Type).

------

6. Assessment

6.1 The application is assessed in two parts. The first part relates to the Outline component of the application (extra care building and 34 bungalows), while the second part relates to the Full component (LGS sports facilities and associated development).

Part 1 – Outline application for 60 bed extra care building and 34 bungalows (access only to be considered) a) Is the Proposal Use Class C2, Use Class C3, or a Mix

6.2 The applicant submitted a case that both the 60 bedroom extra care building and the 34 bungalows are all Use Class C2. Latterly, the applicant has significantly expanded upon their case in a document titled ‘Further Supporting Statement – Extra Care proposals’ (submitted 01.11.19). A review of this document follows from paragraph 6.11 to 6.22.

6.3 The supporting information which was originally submitted with the application, principally the D&A Statement and the Planning Statement, was reviewed for evidence that the “60 bed care building” would be Use Class C2 and the “34 associated bungalows” would be Use Class C2. The findings were as follows:

60 bed care building

From the submitted information, it can be ascertained that the 60 bed building would contain a 480 sq.m “community space / facility”. Little other clarity/information was provided beyond:

• “Community space/facility on the ground floor of the care home (480 square metres)” (Planning Statement 3.1.5). • “The application proposals also incorporate community space within the ground floor of the care home” (Planning Statement 5.2.7). • “Provision of community space within the ground floor of the proposed care home to encourage social and community activities and interaction” (Planning Statement 5.5.3). • “The Site is located within a sustainable location, accessible to retail and community facilities via public transport, within approximately 1km. It is considered that this

access can be improved as part of the proposed development, with the inclusion of a community facility within the care home building” (Planning Statement 7.3) • “The community space included within the ground floor of the care home could offset some of the financial contributions towards community facilities” (Planning Statement 7.2.5) • “It is considered that this access can be improved as part of the proposed development, with the inclusion of a community facility within the care home building” (Planning Statement 9.1.5)

480sq.m is a large space. It was unclear:

1. whether this is a mixed use space (e.g., also the residents’ dining room / lounge)? 2. who the space is intended to serve? 3. how use by residents would be compatible with use (if proposed) by non- residents? 4. of the permitted times of use by various persons / activities? 5. what function it needs serve and who it needs to serve in order to be/remain viable?

34x bungalows

The originally submitted information explains that there are “bungalows for those able to retain an element of independence” (Planning Statement 3.1.7). Little other information was submitted.

6.4 The applicant was advised on 01.07.19 that the 60 bed care building may represent a “residential institution” and thus be considered Use Class C2, but that further information was required to support this position.

The applicant was also advised that the 34 bungalows were considered to represent Use Class C3. The applicant was referred to, inter alia, Harborough Local Plan Policy H4 Specialist Housing, which states at Paragraph 5.7.1:

“Specialist housing refers to forms of sheltered or extra care accommodation where the occupiers receive care and assistance of some kind, but live in self-contained dwellings and have a degree of independence. It is included in the C3 Use Class – ‘dwelling houses’, rather than Use Class C2 - 'residential institutions', although some accommodation within C2 can be provided as part of the same development. On-site communal facilities may be provided and properties can be rented, owned or part owned/part rented.”

6.5 In response, the applicant submitted a one page ‘C2 Use Statement’ on 31.07.19 to support their position.

6.6 In this C2 Use Statement, the applicant states that the “Occupancy of the bungalows will be both age related (plus 55 years) and support related (early stage mental or physical disability).” While it was judged that ‘over 55 occupancy’ could reasonably/precisely be controlled by planning condition, it was unclear how “early stage mental or physical disability” would be controlled by planning condition. The applicant was asked to define this term and/or propose a condition/S106, as follows (Officer email dated 31.07.19):

“With regard to the C2 Use Statement, I understand how a Condition/S106 could control plus 55 years occupancy of the bungalows, but please will you explain a little more how “early stage mental or physical disability” would be qualified in either a

planning Condition/S106? Is it the intention that this is based on a formal medical diagnosis? This element seems more pertinent to the C2 matter, as being over 55 does not itself suggest there are benefits from the C2 care facilities on site.

Suggested wording for a Condition/S106 that works for the applicant would be helpful.”

The applicant responded further on this matter with submission of the 01.11.19 “Further Supporting Statement – Extra Care proposals” document.

6.7 In the 31.07.19 C2 Use Statement, the applicant suggests:

“It is envisaged that residents of the bungalows will have the opportunity to access the range of services available in the care home, such as medical support and meals, but that those services will be optional. It is also intended that the bungalows will be constructed to meet step free requirements.”

It is noted that the “range of services” is stated to be optional.

There are some specific concerns over clarity with regard to the 31.07.19 C2 Use Statement that the bungalows “will be constructed to meet step free requirements” given that the Building Heights Plans showed “2 storey” and, when queried, it has been amended to “1.5 storey” “bungalows”.

6.8 The applicant’s 31.07.19 C2 Use Statement describes an envisaged “smooth transition from the bungalow accommodation to the care home without a need for the resident to relocate elsewhere.” While some credit is attached to this potential situation in terms of the positive benefits which it may offer, it does not itself mean that the bungalows are a C2 Use. Proximity to a C2 Use does not make the bungalows C2. Conversely, the act of transition from one type of accommodation to another, from “independent living” to “24 hour care”, indicates a possible difference in Use Class function between the bungalows and the extra care building.

The applicant has not explained whether there are any mechanisms to secure the movement of residents of the bungalows into the care home. For example, what if the care home is full when a resident needs to move, what if health deteriorates quickly or unexpectedly and care needs increase quickly? This is probably an inherent logistical matter created by the separated physical forms and functions of the care building and bungalows. Some mitigating solutions are likely to exist.

6.9 Advice was sought from the HDC Policy team, including the authors of Local Plan Policy H4 who accompanied the policy from inception, through examination stages, to adoption. The advice received based on a review of the applicant’s original submission and 31.07.19 C2 Use Statement included:

“So far as the Local Plan is concerned, in my judgement the 60 bed care building is Use Class C2 but the 34 associated bungalows fall within Use Class C3.

The Explanation to Policy H4 makes it clear that where occupiers of extra care accommodation receive some kind of care and assistance but live in self-contained dwellings and have a degree of independence, such accommodation is Use Class C3. In this case it would appear that the available support and services are optional to those living in the bungalows, further supporting their C3 use classification.”

The applicant was advised on 07.08.19 of Policy and DM Officers’ conclusions that the 60 bed building appears to be Use Class C2 and the 34 bungalows appear to be Use Class C3. The applicant was also advised:

“It is acknowledged that the applicant maintains that the bungalows are a C2 Use and provides their Application Description on this basis.

6.10 It is noted that the national PPG is brief in its advice regarding the Use Classes Order:

“How does the use classes order apply to specialist housing for older people?

It is for a local planning authority to consider into which use class a particular development may fall. When determining whether a development for specialist housing for older people falls within C2 (Residential Institutions) or C3 (Dwellinghouse) of the Use Classes Order, consideration could, for example, be given to the level of care and scale of communal facilities provided.” (Paragraph: 014 Reference ID: 63-014-20190626; Revision date: 26 June 2019)

6.11 Prior to Committee Report publication the applicant was reminded of the outstanding Use Class C2 / C3 matter. In response, the applicant submitted a 01.11.19 “Further Supporting Statement – Extra Care proposals” which seeks to clarify the matter of C2 / C3 Use and explain the tangible benefits of the scheme.

6.12 In the 01.11.19 Statement, the applicant has proposed 2 planning Conditions:

[Potential strikethrough and bold edits to the applicant’s wording are suggested, but it is not concluded that this wording should be used; it is an indication that the wording of the Conditions may require more thought.]

“A similar suite of conditions was attached to planning permission (17/01483/FUL) for 58 extra care accommodation at 6 Peaker Park, Rockingham Road, Market Harborough. Based on the wording of these conditions Homes England considers that the following conditions are appropriate to protect the C2 use only of the facility:

1) The development hereby permitted shall only be used for the purposes specified in the application and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class C2 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or any provision equivalent to that Class in any Statutory Instrument revoking and/or re- enacting that Order).

REASON: The proposal was is granted based on its particular nature.

2) None of the individual units of residential accommodation at the development shall be used other than as a private place of residence for a person or persons of whom at least one must be a "qualified person" (defined below) at the date of his or her first occupation of the unit in question'. For the purposes of this schedule "a qualified person" means a person who is or has attained the age of 55 years and is in need of personal care at least 2 hours of personal care** per week, established by a qualified health professional, by reason of old age or by reason of disablement. (Whether or not such person suffers from a registered disability under the terms of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970). An occupier of one of the individual units of residential accommodation who is not a "qualified person" but who shares or previously shared the accommodation with the "qualified person" (e.g. a

spouse or surviving spouse) must have attained the age of at least 60 years. If the “qualified person” occupier of a bungalow moves into the main care building, or passes away (whether housed within a bungalow or after having moved from a bungalow into the main care building), the remaining resident/s of the bungalow must be a spouse/partner of the “qualified person”, or must be a son/daughter of the “qualified person” and still living with a spouse/partner of the “qualified person”, or must have attained the age of at least 65*** years.

REASON: The proposal was is granted based on its particular nature.”

**the applicant has not defined “personal care”, or how and by whom this care requirement would be established. It is consider that the meaning of “personal care” and “qualified health professional” should be defined in the planning obligation (S106). Optional / concierge type services should likely be excluded from the definition of personal care.

**the applicant has not defined their intended minimum care requirement. 2 hours as a minimum would be consistent with the “Sidmouth, Devon” appeal (APP/U1105/W/17/3177340).

***age 65 is judged to be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework Glossary definition of Older People being “over or approaching retirement age, including the active, newly-retired…” If the bungalows are to remain serving the specific housing stock needs of older people / people more likely to need care in the mid-to-near future, an age 65 restriction is judged to be reasonable and necessary.

Homes England has stated that they are “happy to enter into a planning obligation reinforcing the age and minimum personal care per week thresholds and will require a future operator to abide by this agreement when developing their proposals.” (page 4, fourth paragraph).

If approved it is judged that amendment should be considered subject to some form of suggested Condition 2, so that it is not prejudicial on grounds of age towards spouses/partners. The fundamental objective of the Condition with regard to the bungalows is that at least one occupier of each bungalow must, to start with, be a “qualified person” and that there must be a planning mechanism to ensure that the bungalows are retained to serve the needs of “qualified” people in perpetuity, yet without unreasonably evicting family who share the bungalow. It is judged to be reasonable that spouses or partners (or other commonly observed carers, i.e., sons/daughters) that outlive the “qualified person”, or wish to remain on site in the bungalow if/when the “qualified person” moves into the 60 bed care building, must be allowed to do so by the Condition and not forced to leave without fair cause. Further evaluation of this condition is recommended if necessary.

6.13 Appeal Review – Land at Skimmingdish Lane, Bicester – APP/C3105/W/18/3193654

This appeal was for a 64 bed care home only (no bungalows). The Inspector observed “most residents would not be able to leave the care home without assistance”. While each proposal & site must be assessed on its own merits, it is noted that the current proposal is fundamentally different to that appeal. The current applicant gives the resident numbers as 60 in the 60 bed main care building and 60 in the 34 bungalows. While the Inspector’s statement above is likely to be true for the 60 residents of the main care building, it is unlikely to be true for many of the 60 residents of the 34 bungalows. Notwithstanding, compared to the current application, the distances from the Skimmingdish Lane site to reach shops & services are less

than for the current proposal, the range of shops & services near to Skimmingdish Lane is much wider, and the nature of the route is evenly paved, uniformly wide and street lit, passing alongside and through an established urban environment / neighbourhood.

6.14 The connectivity weaknesses of the current site with wider society / community in Great Glen are discussed in Section 6.c (Locational Sustainability) of this report. This matter, while arguably of less consequence to the immobile / low mobility residents of the 60 bed care building, would be of significant consequence for many of the residents of the 34 bungalows. Employees and visitors of the care home & bungalows would also be affected, with the circa 3km round trip to local village shops and services not being conducive to lunchtime trips / non-vehicle trips etc. As outlined in Section 6.c, the application should be considered against the needs of all residents, employees and visitors, not just the least immobile occupiers of the 60 bed care building.

6.15 Appeal Review – London Road, West Malling, Kent – APP/H2265/W/18/3204020

On page 5 (paragraph 5) of the applicant’s 01.11.19 Statement, it is stated:

The Inspector concludes “Neither is there any evidence before me of the successful development of retirement villages as the result of development plan allocations. I conclude that there is a local need for residential accommodation of this type and tenure for which the current and emerging Local Plan does not make adequate provision and that the development would make a significant contribution towards meeting such needs”.

It is judged that the adopted Local Plan makes adequate provision for meeting housing needs, including specialist housing needs (and housing for the elderly and extra care), variously through Policies GD2, GD4 (for smaller schemes of up to 4 dwellings for the elderly) H3 and H4. The applicant states that there is an “absence of a clear approach to delivering the specialist housing in the Development Plan” (page 8, sixth paragraph).

It is noted that as part of the HDC Local Plan preparation and examination process (cumulating in adoption April 2019), the Examination Inspector did not accept Homes England’s representation that this site should form part of an allocation. There were amendments to Local Plan Policy H4, but these were minor amendments to satisfy the Examiner’s stipulations. The Examiner then found the Policy (and the whole Plan) to be sound. While there is evidence of District-wide specialist / older person housing need (HEDNA), there is no specific evidence of local need on this countryside site. The applicant’s case for this location appears to hinge mainly on there being “often some synergy between care homes and schools” (Skimmingdish Lane, Bicester, Appeal Decision, paragraph 20) and that this is “particularly relevant to this application and the inter-generational objectives of the Homes England and Leicester Grammar School proposals as a whole.” (01.11.19 Statement, page 5, paragraph 2).

The positive planning benefit of freeing up under-occupied housing stock by enabling older people to move/downsize, as discussed on page 5 (paragraph 6), is noted in the planning balance.

The reference to “health and wellbeing benefits for future occupiers of the development” mentioned on page 5 (last paragraph) is noted, although the applicant does not connect any detail to this statement. For the current development, it is

considered that these benefits can, at present, predominantly be identified as being derived from the residents’ proximity to on-site services (some ‘care’ based, some not) and the (likely) attractive internal landscape environment (trees, planting and grass) of the development.

6.16 The applicant states on page 8 (last paragraph) that “Based on the current need to deliver specialist housing for older persons, Harborough Council should take a positive approach to the current proposals and grant planning approval.” It is agreed that a positive approach should be taken, but not that this necessarily equates to the granting of planning permission. The benefits of the scheme identified in this report must be weighed against any harm which is identified.

6.17 Use Class C2 Evidence:

The applicant has made a number of points and assurances in their 01.11.19 “Further Supporting Statement – Extra Care proposals” document which previously had not been made. For example, previously the applicant had stated in their submission that care services and requirements for occupiers of the bungalows would be “optional”. It has now been explained that “Residents of the bungalows will have the opportunity to access the full range of services available in the main care community building, such as medical support, laundry services, activities and meals, but those services will be optional.” (page 2, last paragraph), and that “An annual care plan assessment will be required”** (page 6, last paragraph) for the “qualified person” occupier of each bungalow. The “qualified person” will be required to meet “age and minimum personal care per week thresholds” (page 4, fourth paragraph). It appears to be the applicant’s objective that “a minimum care/support package will form part of the overall package of benefits”** which bungalow occupiers purchase with their lease (page 6, antepenultimate and penultimate black text paragraphs) (for example, the “emergency call alarm system to contact care staff in the main facility, in the event of trips or falls” and “on-site warden” mentioned by the applicant on page 2, last paragraph). However, beyond this, it appears that the essential “personal care” element required by each “qualified person” bungalow occupier could be provided by off-site providers.

**It is noted that the applicant states these matters “will be confirmed at the Reserved Matters stage”.

6.18 On page 7 (black text paragraph 5), the applicant states that “the residents of the bungalows will also have their own individual care requirements which will be provided by staff from the wider campus in their homes.” It appears that this text may conflict with other text, for example, the “optional” statements mentioned in the above paragraph. However, little weight is attached to this conflict; it is considered likely to be a semantic error, which is superseded by other statements / content in the 01.11.19 document. To accord with the applicant’s “optional” statement, perhaps it should read “some of the residents of the bungalows may also have their own individual care requirements which may be provided by staff from the wider campus in their homes.”

6.19 Appeal APP/D0840/W/18/3199163 (Launceston) is noted with regard to how the Inspector observed that two characteristics distinguish Use Class C2 from Use Class C3: there being “provision of personal care” and that “residents and staff do not form a single household”.

The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (Part C) definitions for Class C2 and Class C3 are:

Class C2. Residential institutions Use for the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care (other than a use within class C3 (dwelling houses)). Use as a hospital or nursing home. Use as a residential school, college or training centre.

Class C3. Dwellinghouses Use as a dwellinghouse (whether or not as a sole or main residence) —

(a) by a single person or by people living together as a family, or (b) by not more than 6 residents living together as a single household (including a household where care is provided for residents).

A bungalow would ordinarily fall within Use Class C3. Local Plan Policy H4 indicates that a self-contained bungalow occupied by someone who received care and assistance of some kind would be Use Class C3. To not be Use Class C3, the bungalows must fail to be either Class C3 (a) or (b). It does not appear that the proposed bungalows would fail to be C3 as per the Use Classes Order 1987 definition.

6.20 The provision of “personal care” – what it includes and excludes – has not been clearly defined by the applicant. On page 4 (black text paragraph 4), the applicant suggests that the “element of care can be administered either within their bungalow or the wider care facility.” However, if the care is not administered within their bungalow (the residential unit), then it could be construed to be similar to an occupier of a C3 dwellinghouse in the village of Great Glen leaving their home to walk 250m along Main Street to reach the doctors’ surgery.

6.21 As per the applicant’s 01.11.19 ‘Further Supporting Statement – Extra Care proposals’, there is no apparent preclusion to occupancy of one of the 2 bedroom bungalows with scenarios such as other family living together and potentially similar to a class C3 dwelling house use, yet it appears that the occupiers of this bungalow would qualify as per the planning conditions suggested in the applicant’s 01.11.19 Statement.

6.22 Advice on the Use Class C2 / C3 matter has been provided by the HDC Policy team, as follows (07.11.19):

The applicant is now referring to the housing elements of their application as a campus type development. This still consists of what is described as an extra care facility including a 60 bed care building (Use Class C2) with 34 associated bungalows (Use Class C2). Although the evidence provided supports the intention of Homes England to provide a care home under the C2 use class, the assertions that co- locating bungalows close to the care home and allowing them to access facilities is not it itself enough to make the bungalows a C2 use.

Recent appeal decisions (Sidmouth, Launceston) suggest that the form and function of the buildings, and the spatial relationship between the different housing units within the building(s) on a older persons campus is important when determining the use class of a development. The Sidmouth case had residential units accessed through communal spaces and was deemed to be C2, whereas Launceston had stand alone bungalows that where deemed to be C3. These appeals relate to full detailed applications where the full form and functional relationships between the residential units and the rest of the scheme were fully understood and tied down in

planning terms through conditions and legal agreements. In the Sidmouth case an annual care assessment, a minimum number of hours of care and the requirements for care to be provided by a CQC registered provider were also all important in supporting the C2 use conclusion. As the applicant acknowledges this level of detail is not available for this scheme at outline stage. Indeed, the supporting statement indicates much of the details around these issues will be provided at the reserved matters stage.

There is therefore a significant challenge in coming to a definitive view about whether a scheme including a care home and bungalows is in fact a C2 or C3 use at outline stage. The PPG on Housing for older and disabled people suggests consideration could be given to level of care and scale of facilities provided in coming to a C2/C3 use class judgement. The applicant has provided more information on the role of Homes England in the older person’s housing market, and provided a clearer vision of their intended end product, which is helpful. The clarification that the intention the bungalows will be leasehold and not for sale on the open market is a step forward, however they have not included robust mechanisms to secure this. Ultimately if permission was granted for a outline C2 scheme including a care home and bungalows, this would not negate the need for the use class issue to be considered once the detailed design, layout, building arrangements, care package requirements, tenure arrangements etc were known. If at this stage it was clear that the bungalows in fact were a C3 element then the reserved matters applications would need to be refused as being not in compliance with the outline application.

From a planning perspective the planning conditions and section 106 need to include robust mechanism to demonstrate the whole scheme is a C2 scheme. I am not sure the current suggested conditions and legal agreement secure in planning terms the visions and ambition intended by the applicant, that would enable to conclude this outline scheme has to be delivered in a comprehensive manner with the clear interdependencies between the form and function and occupation of the bungalows and the care home that would make it a C2 scheme.”

6.23 The 01.11.19 ‘Further Supporting Statement – Extra Care proposals’ document has sought to offer additional evidence and assurance that the proposal is wholly a C2 Use.

In conclusion, it is accepted that the proposed 60 bed extra care building can reasonably be defined (and controlled by planning conditions and/or S106) as a Use Class C2 residential institution given its proposed indicative design (60 bedrooms in a single building with shared access and spaces outside of the private bedrooms) and function (to provide residential accommodation for 24 hour / high care need occupiers).

However, a number of details remain to be qualified about the 34 bungalows and it is unclear whether it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that they fall within Use Class C2 “Residential Institution”. By the 01.11.19 Statement’s text, it appears that the applicant wishes to confirm certain details at reserved matters stage.

6.24 Notwithstanding the above debate over Use Classes C2 / C3, an understanding about the applicant’s intended function of the 34 bungalows and the 60 bed care building has been provided. Although mechanisms to secure the function of the bungalows are unclear (and could be affected by any number of things if left to REM stage, e.g. procurement, viability, etc.), if this were to be resolved (for example by condition or obligation) that attracts positive weight to the applicant’s intended symbiotic relationship between bungalows and care home in the planning balance.

b) Infrastructure Contributions

6.25 The applicant has reasonably debated the range of consultee S106 requests, asking questions about evidence and calculations.

6.26 In conclusion, there is accord between all requests and the applicant except on the matter of Affordable Housing provision. The HDC Housing Enabling and Community Infrastructure Officer has indicated that they consider a contribution is justified based on the 34 bungalows aligning predominantly with Use Class C3. Affordable housing requirements do not disappear with age / 2 hour care need requirements. The applicant has not provided any information to rebut this request, but through their 01.11.19 Statement submission has sought to consolidate an exemption on grounds of Use Class C2.

6.27 It is not considered that the planning merits of the scheme, weighed in the balance above and below in this report, currently outweigh this lack of accord over affordable housing provision. This concern could form a reason for refusal to effect that the development would not provide necessary infrastructure mitigation measures in terms of catering for evidenced affordable housing needs in the District (Local Plan Policy H2). However, refusal of permission is not recommended on this ground as notwithstanding the apparent dispute the matter is potentially resolvable, for example by condition or obligation negotiated on any approval if necessary. Furthermore it will not add to other suggested reasons for refusal on clear planning policy conflict.

c) Specialist Housing Need, Locational Sustainability and Principle of Development

Specialist Housing Need

6.28 The most up to date Local Plan evidence demonstrates there is a need to provide specialist housing schemes in the District in order to plan appropriately for a mix of housing needs (including for older/disabled people). The content of the HEDNA and Local Plan Policy H4 sub-text is noted in this respect, including Local Plan para 5.7.3:

“The District's need for specialist housing for older people to 2031 has been estimated to be 63 dwellings per annum or 1,267 dwellings over the plan period (Leicester and Leicestershire Housing and Employment Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA), 2017, Table 65, p.138).”

6.29 The LPA “Specialist Housing Trajectory” document (October 2018; which formed part of the Local Plan examination process) indicates:

“1.3 Since April 2017 four specialist schemes totalling 217 units (row B) have been granted planning permission or have a resolution to grant planning permission, namely:

• Land at St Wilfrids Close, Kibworth (45 retirement apartments) [17/00500/FUL – approved 20.03.2018]; • Clarence Street, Market Harborough (44 retirement apartments) [17/00686/FUL – approved 09.04.2018];

• Peaker Park, Market Harborough (58 extra-care apartments) [17/01483/FUL – approved 09.08.2018]; • Market Harborough District Hospital (70-bed care home) [18/00687/FUL – approved 28.02.2019].

…

1.5 The total anticipated delivery from completions, commitments and strategic allocations for the 2011-31 plan period is 652 units against the HEDNA need figure of 1267, leaving a residual need of 615 units to 2031 to be delivered through the criteria based policy. Planning consents over the last two years total 217 units indicating that the market is responding to demand.”

6.30 The applicant states that the 1,267 unit figure is a “minimum” need (01.11.19 “Further Supporting Statement – Extra Care proposals”, p.8), but the HEDNA states that it is an “indicative need” (heading, p.137) and “potential need” (para.9.11). Elsewhere in the HEDNA “minimum” and “maximum” need definitions are used (for example, with regard to employment land needs: paras 11.22, 11.36, p.185, 12.69, 12.71; and with regard to starter home needs: para 7.64). It appears that the 1,267 figure should be read as an indication of the best evidence of total need and not minimum need at the time of writing.

6.31 All four of the above planning applications, which total 217 units, have either been built or are in the process of being built.

6.32 A further resolution to approve can be added to the 217 unit figure:

• 19/00461/FUL – Ambulance Station, Leicester Road, Market Harborough – 76-bed care home (Use Class C2) – Approval resolved 09.07.2019, pending S106 completion.

6.33 These 76 units (19/00461/FUL) raise the ‘Projected specialist housing from existing commitments’ (row B) to 293 units. When this figure is added to ‘Total SH from existing commitments’ of 154 units (row A) and ‘Total projected provision from Local Plan strategic allocations in accordance with H4(1)b**’ of 281 units, the total anticipated delivery from completions, commitments and strategic allocations for the 2011-31 plan period is 728 units against the HEDNA need figure of 1,267. Therefore, the residual need is 539 units. There are 12 more years to the plan period to 2031 (2019/20 through to 2030/31 inclusive. From April 2020 there will be 11 more years). The expectation is that the residual need of 539 units to 2031 will be delivered through the criteria based policy in the Local Plan, at an average rate of 45 units per year (539 ÷ 12).

(**this is now criterion H4(2)c, as the policy criteria in the adopted Local Plan have been adjusted since the “Specialist Housing Trajectory” document of October 2018).

6.34 The applicant’s Planning Statement reports at para 5.2.5 that “as at January 2019, only 371 dwellings or 53 dwellings per annum have been provided or granted planning permission” (in the last seven years). This needs updating to reflect the 76 units under 19/00461/FUL and that calculations should now be based on the last eight years; i.e. ‘as at October 2019, 447 units or 56 dwellings per annum have been provided, granted planning permission or have a resolution to grant planning permission.’

6.35 The applicant’s Planning Statement makes the point that the need for specialist housing for older people is “exacerbated by the identified under-delivery in the last seven years” (para 5.2.5).

6.36 It is noted that 56 dwellings per annum is 7 dwellings per annum under the HEDNA average figure of 63 dwellings per annum (based on 1,267 dwellings total over the 20 year plan period). If the 60 extra care units and the 34 bungalows subject of the current application were to be approved and added to the specialist housing figures (94 additional units), a total of (447 + 94) 541 units or 68 dwellings per annum would have been provided, granted planning permission or have a resolution to grant planning permission; i.e., 5 dwellings per annum over the HEDNA average.

6.37 While the above example scenario indicates the merits of the scheme in terms of boosting unit provision, it also indicates that provision is approximately on track, that current under-delivery is not severe and that it could be reversed into an over-delivery scenario by one application approval. While present under-delivery is acknowledged and over-delivery (subject to concomitant need and limited vacancy rates) is a positive, there are 12 more years to achieve the unallocated residual need of 539 units and meet the HEDNA figure of 1,267 units over the plan period. Importantly, the aforementioned 5 planning applications (permissions dating from only March 2018), totalling 293 units, are a strong indication that the market is responding to demand in sustainable locations. There is no substantive evidence that the specialist housing needs of the District will not be met over the current plan period based on current trajectories. While positive weight is attached to the scheme on the basis of boosting provision, this is considered to be moderate weight rather than significant and demonstrable ‘tilted’ additional weight (of the type which would be applied at the time of a 5 year housing land supply shortfall).

6.38 As per the requirements of HDC Local Plan Policy GD2 (2.b), the applicant has not identified a “local housing need as evidenced through a housing needs survey or a neighbourhood plan”. However, it appears to be the applicant’s contention that this is not relevant to the proposal because “the facility does not need to be well located to a village or village centre” (page 10) and its location hinges largely on its siting adjacent to the Grammar School. This is the principal matter which makes it locally relevant or necessary as per the applicant’s case. Otherwise, it is judged that there is no substantive evidence that there is a need for a 60 bed care building and 34 bungalow units in this specific location. The applicant has not supplied any evidence from Adult Social Care or local need surveys and only describes ‘soft market’ testing (01.11.19 Statement, page 7).

6.39 While the current scheme has merit in terms of proposing a 60 bed extra care facility and 34 bungalows and there is demonstrable need for this within the District during the Plan period, the details of the current application site in terms of its location must be weighed in the balance.

Locational Sustainability and Principle of Development

6.40 Given the Outline format of the proposal, specific site design details are brief and indicative only. It is understood that a 60 bed extra care single building is proposed, with 34 bungalows positioned elsewhere within the site. An Illustrative Masterplan (Rev J) has been submitted to indicate how the extra care building and the bungalows may be accommodated, with associated parking, access, amenity green space and boundary treatments.

6.41 The national PPG advises (bold emphasis added):

“What factors should decision makers consider when assessing planning applications for specialist housing for older people?

Decision makers should consider the location and viability of a development when assessing planning applications for specialist housing for older people. Local planning authorities can encourage the development of more affordable models and make use of products like shared ownership. Where there is an identified unmet need for specialist housing, local authorities should take a positive approach to schemes that propose to address this need.” (PPG – Paragraph: 016 Reference ID: 63-016-20190626)

6.42 Although the site is reasonably well positioned in terms of access to public bus stops, its benefits in other respects are much more limited. The applicant asserts in their Planning Statement (and accompanying Transport Assessment) that the site is “located within a highly sustainable location which has access to a range of transport modes.” (Planning Statement para 2.2.7). While the site is close to public bus stops served by reasonably frequent busses, which in turn (at some distance) provide potential access to railway links**, and good cycle links into Leicester’s fringe are also noted, this is the extent of its “range of transport modes”. Given the location of the site, walking and cycling would inevitably be prejudiced in favour of private car/vehicle use. As explored below, the site is not considered to be in a “highly sustainable location”, particularly more so given some of the specialist housing elements of the proposal.

(**primarily direct access to Leicester train station. Links to Market Harborough train station require an additional walk of 800metres. There is no connection from Oadby to Wigston train station and a traveller from the site would be required to travel into Leicester before getting a bus back out to Wigston and then walking a further 10 minutes (2,018 feet) to reach South Wigston Railway Station.)

6.43 It is noted that if a bungalow’s resident/s lacked a vehicle and had low physical mobility – as appears to be the applicant’s objective from their submissions (particularly their case that the bungalows are a C2 Residential Institution Use Class) – the residents would be somewhat cut off from local shops, services and facilities, save for access via a bus route. Walking on an icy or wet rural pavement/road to then wait for a bus to take you the 3 minute journey into Great Glen is not comparable to being able to walk for 3 minutes through street lit village streets, safely overlooked by houses, to reach village facilities.

6.44 Local Plan Policy H4 (Specialist Housing) is explicitly and repeatedly clear (bold emphasis added):

“1. The provision of well-designed specialist forms of accommodation in appropriate locations will be supported, taking into account housing needs.

2. Specialist accommodation development will be: a. permitted on sites within existing residential areas; b. permitted where it is in accordance with Policy GD2; c. sought as an integral part of all residential developments of over 100 dwellings at a rate of at least 10% of all dwellings proposed, where: i. the site offers a suitable location for the provision of specialist housing; and ii. provision of specialist housing would not have an adverse impact upon the deliverability and/or viability of the scheme.

3. Any proposal for specialist accommodation development should demonstrate that it: a. is conveniently situated in relation to local retail and community services; and b. has a design, layout and access suitable for occupation by the particular specialist group for whom it is intended.”

6.45 It could be argued that the location of the 60 bed care building is less dependent on traditional location sustainability criteria, such as how easy and close it is to walk or cycle to shops, services, facilities and public transport links. It seems reasonable to assume that the average resident of the 60 bed extra care building would not leave the building unaccompanied and that many external trips would be undertaken as groups which rely on vehicular (e.g., minibus) travel. In this case, the site is not a great distance from the centre of Great Glen and the edge of Leicester.

6.46 On page 2 (fourth paragraph) of the applicant’s 01.11.19 Statement it is indicated that “Homes England will work in partnership with the school and the local authority to ensure the provider who is procured is totally aligned with our shared aspirations.” It is noted that the Council has no authority in the procurement selection process of Homes England.

6.47 On page 2 (fifth paragraph) of the 01.11.19 Statement it is indicated that “The design of the buildings will be of the highest quality, maximising light and views of the wider landscape setting and the sports facilities, encouraging interaction with outdoor activities.”

However, the trees and foliage belts along the north, west and part of the south boundaries of the Outline site largely prevent views of the “wider landscape” for most of the year. The applicant’s Indicative “Illustrative Masterplan” also proposes screen landscaping along the rest of the south boundary with London Road, to buffer the development from traffic and views. Views to the east of the proposed rugby pitch and existing LGS complex are not considered to represent views of the “wider landscape”.

On page 5 (paragraph 4), the applicant states “The Inspector in this case concluded that the contained nature of the site and the opportunities for retained and enhanced landscaping, as per the Stretton Hall scheme…” The applicant is indicating that they would also ‘retain and enhance landscaping’ and create a “contained nature” to the site. This further indicates that the wider landscape (outside the site) would be shielded from sight and would not be greatly visible to residents within the site.

Views of the rugby pitch would likely (for reasons of security, trespass, ball stray, and noise mitigation) be affected by requisite landscaping, screen planting and/or fencing (or other bungalows obstructing views), particularly for the 34 bungalows and ground floor views.

6.48 On page 2 (sixth paragraph) of the applicant’s 01.11.19 Statement it is stated that “The main care community building will accommodate residents who have a requirement for 24 hour on site care support related to mental and/or physical disability.” It is unclear how this is compatible with “encouraging interaction with outdoor activities.” The applicant may intend that a first floor lounge area would be created in the 60 bed care building which permits people to spectate over a rugby match / activities taking place on the rugby field, but as the application is in Outline such details are unresolved. It could be that the extent of what the applicant means by “encouraging interaction with outdoor activities” is this and/or venturing outside the 60 bed care building (and bungalows) into the landscaped grounds for a short

walk/sit, gardening activities, wildlife watching or other such typical domestic “outdoor activities”. It may be postulated that a view of / proximity to the rugby pitch and monolithic LGS swimming pool building would encourage greater uptake of hydrotherapy pool classes and other outdoor activities.

6.49 The positives of the site’s location could be promoted above an urban environment, for example in terms of it possessing a leafy rural disposition. It could be stated that it would also be quieter and more tranquil for residents, more removed from traffic and urban bustle, although the proximity of the proposed sports pitches/facilities (notably the rugby pitch) and LGS coach and car park extension is likely to undermine this on a daily basis, at certain times, during term times. All of these arguments appear reasonable.

6.50 However, a site on the edge of Great Glen, or in another sustainable settlement in the District, could possess all of these aspects but still be cohesive with the built form of the settlement (“within” or “adjoining” as per GD2 terminology) and much better integrated into the community environment of the settlement.

6.51 Some positive weight is attached to the provision of bungalows which would have benefits for older people with mobility issues. However, this benefit would be largely subject to the bungalows having accommodation across one floor. It appears to be the applicant’s objective from their Building Heights Plan submissions to have two floors of accommodation in the “bungalows” (1.5 storeys), although the submitted 31.07.19 C2 Use Statement and the 01.11.19 Statement purport to “step free” construction. It is unclear how these two apparently diverging objectives can be united without the installation of lifts in the bungalows. Lifts would appear to be a costly and avoidable expense by simply proposing 1 storey bungalows.

6.52 It is also noted that the bungalows are proposed as smaller dwelling types in terms of bedroom numbers (1 or 2 bed). This is judged to be a further positive of the scheme.

6.53 Notwithstanding the debate regarding whether “bungalows” are proposed with one or more floors of accommodation, they would contribute to the maintenance of the LPA’s 5 year housing land supply. This is a benefit of the scheme, but given the LPA’s current 7.04YS no additional (tilted) positive weight is attached to the proposal’s delivery of 34 bungalow units.

6.54 It is judged to be appropriate to test the locational sustainability of the bungalows by a more orthodox assessment against ease of access to local shops, services, public transport and cycle links and employment opportunities (one or more of the proposed residents of each dwelling could still be employment) – is the site satisfactorily located and accessible to these services and facilities, mindful of the fact that these services and facilities are what make the village of Great Glen a sustainable (Rural Centre) settlement which is more appropriate to receive new housing growth relative to lesser-provisioned settlements. It is important to create a choice of direct, safe and attractive routes between where people live and where they need to travel in their day-to-day lives.

6.55 The Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation document ‘Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot’ (2000) provides guidance on various walking distances. Table 3.2 (p.49) of the document suggests walking distances for pedestrians without mobility impairment and indicates that, for commuters and school pupils, up to 500 metres is the desirable walking distance, up to 1,000 metres is an acceptable walking distance, and up to 2,000 metres is the preferred maximum walking distance. The distance that people will walk to access other shops

and services depends on a range of complex interplaying factors, for example, the attractiveness of the walking route, how easy or difficult it is to park if opting to drive, the ‘pull’ of the shop/service, etc. Table 3.2 indicates that in Town Centres people are, on average, less inclined to walk greater distances. It is considered that Great Glen (and the application site) falls within the “Commuting/School” column for trips to work and school and “Elsewhere” column for other journeys, although this is obviously a generalised tabulation of guideline figures.

6.56 It is judged that the “acceptable” row should be viewed more as a maximum distance given the proposed bungalow nature of the housing and the intended proportion of ‘older’ / ‘elderly’ / ‘later-life’ / lower-mobility residents (although the applicant’s intention for over-55 and 2 hours of personal care occupancy, or spouse/partner occupancy, may fall short of these definitions). A notable portion of residents could be expected to have, or be approaching, physical decline, mobility impairment and/or disabilities (for example, including hearing and visual impairments). The ‘Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot’ (2000) document outlines the particular importance of the “quality and suitability of the existing network”. Clearly, policies and guidance highlight the benefits of directing housing for older people and those with higher levels of care needs to the most sustainable and central locations.

6.57 Building Sustainable Transport into New Developments (DfT, 2008) gives the following advice on pedestrian catchment areas:

“Traditional compact town layouts

Walking neighbourhoods are typically characterised as having a range of facilities within 10 minutes’ walking distance (around 800 metres). However, the propensity to walk or cycle is not only influenced by distance but also the quality of the experience; people may be willing to walk or cycle further where their surroundings are more attractive, safe and stimulating. Developers should consider the safety of the routes (adequacy of surveillance, sight lines and appropriate lighting) as well as landscaping factors (indigenous planting, habitat creation) in their design.”

6.58 The Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation document “Planning for Walking” (April 2015) states:

“6.3 Land use planning for pedestrians

Most people will only walk if their destination is less than a mile** away. Land use patterns most conducive to walking are thus mixed in use and resemble patchworks

of “walkable neighbourhoods,” with a typical catchment of around 800m or 10 minutes’ walk.” (p.29).

**1,609 metres.

6.59 “Planning for Walking” (April 2015) also qualifies that “the power of a destination determines how far people will walk to get to it. For bus stops in residential areas, 400 metres has traditionally been regarded as a cut-off point and in town centres, 200 metres (DOENI, 2000). People will walk up to 800 metres to get to a railway station, which reflects the greater perceived quality or importance of rail services.” (p.31).

6.60 The Leicestershire County Council Highway Design Guide states that in rural areas the walking distance (to bus stops) should not be more than 800m. However, the site is proposed as a residential development and given the nature of the average proposed occupier a “Planning for Walking” (April 2015) distance of 400m is judged to be a more appropriate guide.

6.61 The proposed access works indicate installation of a 2m wide pedestrian footway from the site to connect via tactile dropped kerbs installations to the existing footway on the west side of Chestnut Drive. From here, pedestrians can access nearby bus stops:

• It is approximately 130m from the edge of the site to reach the southbound / Market Harborough bound bus stop; • It is approximately 185m from the edge of the site to the northbound / Oadby / Leicester bound bus route. • Approximately 85m can be added to each of the above figures for a resident or an employee of / visitor to the extra care building to walk from the edge of the site to the front door of the care building (i.e., 215m and 270m totals to reach bus stops).

6.62 A pedestrian cut through link is proposed between the site and London Road. Its location is considered to be indicative, but it is judged to be an essential element. It would permit closer access for some bungalow residents to bus stops and it would permit closer access for all bungalow residents and visitors to the nearby Public House and hotel premises, as well as footpath routes into Great Glen. Using the pedestrian link:

• It is approximately 410m from the farthest indicated bungalow’s front door to reach the southbound / Market Harborough bound bus stop; • It is approximately 450m from the farthest bungalow’s front door to the northbound / Oadby / Leicester bound bus route.

6.63 It is considered that parts of the site are reasonably close to bus stops. For example, the extra care building would be satisfactorily close to bus stops for employees, visitors and some more-mobile residents. However, other parts of the site where bungalows are proposed give some cause for concern in terms of the distances from the bus stops. This is particularly true given the lower-mobility, elder nature of intended residents; characteristics which are likely to make walking more difficult and/or off-putting.

6.64 Manual for Streets (MfS) states:

“4.4.1 Walkable neighbourhoods are typically characterised by having a range of facilities within 10 minutes’ (up to about 800m) walking distance of residential areas which residents may access comfortably on foot. However, this is not an upper limit and PPS13** states that walking offers the greatest potential to replace short car trips, particularly those under 2 km’. MfS encourages a reduction in the need to travel by car through the creation of mixed-use neighbourhoods with interconnected street patterns, where daily needs are within walking distance of most residents.”

(**deleted Govt. Policy)

“4.4.2 By creating linkages between new housing and local facilities and community infrastructure, the public transport network and established walking and cycling routes are fundamental to achieving more sustainable patterns of movement and to reducing people’s reliance on the car. A masterplan (or scheme layout for smaller- scale developments) can help ensure that proposals are well integrated with existing facilities and places.”

6.65 The proposal is judged to be weak in terms of its accord with the above Manual for Streets objectives. From a centre point in the layout of the indicatively proposed 34x bungalows to the centre of Great Glen on foot (the Co-op retail unit in this specific example) is measured at ~1,450 metres. The route generally uses footways adjacent to vehicular carriageways. A section of Public Right of Way can also be used in order to get away from traffic. The route is depicted in the aerial image below (likely to need to be viewed in colour to discern the route, but a star is added where the Co- op is). Parts of the first half of the route alongside London Road lack street lighting, and/or are narrow, and/or at points come close to the 40mph vehicle carriageway. The section of Public Right of Way is narrow and uneven in surface. Overall, the route has some limitations in terms of walking routes, particularly for the elderly, wheelchair / mobility-vehicle users and less sure footed / able-bodied / confident persons. (An alternative route avoiding the PROW, taking London Road and then Church Road, and using only pavements alongside vehicle carriageways is also ~1,450m in length). It is noted that the Great Glen Neighbourhood Plan Policy ‘Footpaths and Cycleways’ (GG15 Figure 9 previous Plan, GG18 Figure 13 new Plan) recognises that enhancements would benefit most of this route by identifying it in yellow as “aspirations: new footpaths and cycleways”. The limitations of the route are recognised in adopted development plan policy.

Walking route to retail/service centre of Great Glen:

6.66 With regard to the above cited Manual for Streets paragraphs, the walking route from the site to Great Glen is, in large part, not through mixed-use neighbourhoods with interconnected street patterns. At times it has a rural character and sense of isolation from other housing, facilities and community infrastructure. A substantial part of the route does not feel well integrated with existing facilities and places. For example, there is no overlooking and someone could trip/fall with less chance of being seen. On top of what is judged to be an excessive distance to facilitate realistic walking for many of the proposed residents, the route has lighting / surface / width / gradient limitations and runs adjacent to the 40mph road at times, which may make users feel vulnerable. These matters are likely to dissuade use. It is considered that the site would be physically remote and unacceptably detached from the village of Great Glen. The same is considered to be true for northwestern pedestrian movements to reach Leicester’s urban extent in terms of distance.

6.67 Cycling links for the site are considered to be better, mindful that it is appropriate to judge against greater distances than can be travelled than on foot. However, it appears that the ~60 occupiers of the care building would be unlikely to utilise this form of transport and it is unclear whether there would be lower levels of cycling journeys undertaken by bungalow occupiers owing to health / confidence issues. It is considered that cycling journeys are likely, on average, to be significantly lower for residents in more latter-life stages, for example, when residents would be in their 80s and 90s. Less weight is attached to the cycling connectivity of the site given its proposed use.

6.68 It is noted that a public house and hotel lie adjacent to the south of the site. Although these facilities may offer some benefits to residents, visitors and staff, their presence

is not judged to make the site satisfactorily sustainable in terms of its accessibility to a range of shops and facilities. Similarly, the Sainsbury supermarket to the north within Oadby and Wigston Borough is relatively distant and not convenient or accessible from this site other by non-motorised forms of transport. Daily needs would not be within walking distance of most residents.

6.69 In the applicant’s 01.11.19 Statement, page 10 (last two paragraphs) some of the favourable and pleasant characteristics of the site’s location are described – “local footpaths and cycle routes”; “meet and socialise while watching the school sporting activities facilities or enjoying a walk and exercise in the landscaped grounds or local countryside around Stretton Hall.” It is judged that these benefits are not unique to the proposal and would be equal were the proposal to be for an open market C3 housing development. Unless it is judged that older people / those in need of care are more in need of these pleasant rural aspects than other sections of society, then limited weight can be attached to these matters.

6.70 The similarly poor (or worse) locational sustainability credentials of Stretton Hall dwellings and dwellings to the south of London Road (Erringtons Close, Foxpond Lane and Spion Kopje) are noted. However, their existence (and basis in expired development plans and national policies) is not considered to justify a departure from current development plan and national policies and guidance.

6.71 The applicant has indicated that the “480sq.m” of ‘community space’ within the main care building would be open not just to residents of the care building and the 34 bungalows, but also to the “wider community”. In this respect, Local Plan Policy HC2 ‘Community Facilities’ is noted. It states at criterion 3:

“Proposals for the provision of new community facilities and the flexible use of existing spaces for community uses will be permitted where they are within easy and safe walking distance of the majority of the community that they will serve.”

The location of the site is not judged to be acceptable in this regard. The proposed new community facility would not be within “easy and safe walking distance of the majority of the community” that it would serve. The site is too far removed from the majority of the community of Great Glen to be judged to be easily accessible by foot. It is a poor location to place a new community facility to serve the village. Little weight is attached to the benefits of the proposed new community facility to the wider community of Great Glen on this basis.

However, the site is not a great distance by car for large numbers of people and this could be argued to be a positive if one seeks to apply less weight to HC2 and other Local Plan policies and select a site in the open countryside.

6.72 The applicant has, in their 01.11.19 Statement, sought to make the point that the location of the care home in this countryside location is an “intergenerational extra care facility” and “integrated package” alongside the LGS sports pitches, sports pavilion, maintenance building and car and coach parks. On pages 9 and 10 of the 01.11.19 Statement the applicant seeks to contextualise this matter and describe the “benefit for mental health and the overall well-being of older people from interacting with younger generations”.

6.73 On page 10 (non-italic paragraph 3), the applicant explains:

“The unique nature of the proposals between Leicester Grammar School and Homes England means that a number of specific opportunities have been identified, in

principle, for able residents of the Extra Care facility to contribute to the school programme or share the facilities of the school. Such opportunities include the sharing of resident’s knowledge/ experiences in school classes and projects, shared use of the school’s café facility, shared use of the sports facilities i.e. swimming pool for hydro-therapy sessions, and use of the school mini-bus for residents of the Extra Care accommodation to access local shops/facilities.”

6.74 On page 13 (black text paragraph 4), it is explained:

“It is accepted that at present there is no definition of an ‘intergenerational Extra Care facility’. Homes England is promoting the scheme at Stretton Hall to be an exemplar site and thus a model for other operators and Local Authorities to use a reference point. As set out above, Homes England is tasked with acting as a ‘disruptor’ in the housing market and to deliver flag-ship scheme that are appropriate to their location. No locational requirements are set out in planning policy or guidance but Homes England’s role as public sector landowner, delivery partner and development facilitator means that they can actively encourage a future operator to maximise the social care and wider community benefits of these proposals.”

6.75 While this approach is positive and supported in principle, it is not possible to articulate to Committee how the scheme would guarantee this. The applicant concludes this on page 13 of the 01.11.19 Statement (last paragraph):

“As set out above the proposals, and any benefits, will be secured by means of planning conditions and S.106 together with other legal agreements between Homes England (as landowner), the future Extra Care operators and Leicester Grammar School (as purchasers). However, it is acknowledged that the precise benefits will be identified at the Reserved Matters stage.”

The scheme is in Outline, with all matters reserved except for access. No details have been provided by the applicant in recommended Condition or S106 format to support the application – to demonstrate that such terms are feasible, viable, sustainable or accepted between the applicants. At present, the applicant’s objectives appear aspirational. While supported in principle, it is considered that only a limited degree of positive weight can be attached to intergenerational benefits at this time.

6.76 The Illustrative Masterplan shows a long circuitous route for most of the bungalows to reach the front entrance (main entrance to the classroom buildings) of LGS – it is not apparent that desire lines have been thought about at masterplan stage and while the Outline proposal layout is only indicative, the proposed rugby pitch and coach/car park are part of a Full application which seeks to fix details/layout and would set limitations on potential pedestrian links – it appears that most pedestrians leaving the bungalows would have to take a longer walk west, north and then east around the rugby pitch, or if a cut-through and more direct pedestrian link were able to be created around the southeast corner of the rugby pitch this would appear to deposit people on to a roadway. These matters could perhaps be redesigned, but they do not appear to wholly correlate with the latterly submitted text of the 01.11.19 Statement.

6.77 Notwithstanding this, the hire of the School’s minibus and swimming pool are not considered to represent significant or unique opportunities. It is not judged that a more sustainable location within Great Glen, or elsewhere, would preclude an extra care home / bungalows proposal from establishing an inter-generational relationship with LGS (or another school, public or private), particularly as it appears to be

acknowledged that a mini-bus is required “for residents of the Extra Care accommodation to access local shops/facilities”.

Summary

6.78 Mindful of the information outlined above, along with cited best practice advice and guidance regarding acceptable walking & travel distances, it is considered that the site would not lie within a satisfactory distance to a range of village shops, services and public transport links for a substantial portion of residents. This is notwithstanding any contention that the development is to some extent self contained and sustainable. The proposal must be assessed against its complete needs and it is judged that there is a significant and demonstrable requirement for the bungalows to be based in a more sustainable and connected location. The location of this site would not provide future occupiers with a realistic option to choose walking and cycling as an alternative to private vehicle trips in order to access a range of village facilities. In locational sustainability and wider-community integration terms the site would be poorly connected, including as pertains to the proposed new community facility not being within easy and safe walking distance of the majority of the community. Overall, the location of the site is not judged to accord with local and national locational sustainability principles. Significant harm is identified in this respect, which when weighed in the planning balance is considered to outweigh the benefits of the application and represent a reason for refusal.

d) Superfast Broadband

6.79 Local Plan Policy IN3 states that:

“1. Major development will only be permitted where adequate broadband infrastructure is to be made available to all residents and/or users of the development. 2. Major development should incorporate a bespoke duct network, designed and implemented in cooperation with a recognised network provider, and where viable, a fibre to the premises (FTTP) solution.”

6.80 It is considered that an appropriately worded Condition could be added at Outline stage to secure compliance with this Policy.

e) Agricultural Land Classification

6.81 The NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by recognising the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land (BMV) (Paragraph 170). The Framework (Annex 2: Glossary; p.65), defines BMV as “Land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification.” Grade one is best quality and grade five is poorest quality. A number of criteria are used for assessment, which includes climate (temperature, rainfall, aspect, exposure, frost risk), site conditions (gradient, micro-relief, flood risk) and soil qualities (depth, structure, texture, chemicals, stoniness).

6.82 The total site area is 13.2 hectares, which includes approximately 1.7 hectares of tree belts. The applicant has stated that the land is Grade 3. It is not known whether the site is subgrade 3a or 3b.

6.83 While the proposed development would not result in the loss of Grade 1 or Grade 2 BMV agricultural land, the application must be assessed on the basis that the site may be BMV Grade 3a.

6.84 Given the intermediate Grade 3 classification, the amount of land take and that a large portion of the site is a relatively reversible land use (e.g., grass rugby, athletics and cricket pitches), it is judged that harmful effects on contemporary agricultural interests and the ecological benefits of BMV would not be significant.

f) Landscape Character Impacts and Indicative Design Considerations

6.85 The established tree belts around the west, north and parts of the southwest boundaries of the Outline site would offer screening for the development from these directions. The site is open to view along a significant part of its southwest boundary. It is noted how these views take in buildings on the existing LGS site, in particular the large rectangular mass of the large pool/sports building, seen here:

(Source: Google Streetview; image date April 2016)

6.86 It is noted that the applicant’s Illustrative Masterplan indicates planting along the southwest boundary and throughout the site; this would offer a range of benefits – it would reduce exposure from London Road (including traffic), enhance screening of the development, screen and break up the massing of the existing LGS site, and enhance the internal character and appearance of the development.

6.87 The proposed extra care building (11.5m maximum height) is indicated to be positioned in the northwest corner of the field, relatively close to a backdrop of high trees. Indicative CGIs have been submitted which are judged to show a good quality building in terms of design and materials. For example, the vertical timber and glazed framework part of the front of the building would be in keeping with the verticality and aesthetic of its sylvan backdrop. However, these are indicative images/designs and they are not subject to approval at this stage; therefore limited weight is attached.

6.88 The bungalows are indicated to be 5.5m maximum height. There is space within the site to spread them around relatively loosely, with sufficient space left over for requisite vehicle ways, parking and pedestrian paths. Further space would remain for green space and landscaping to break up the built form of the development and deliver requisite on-site open space provision. This is judged to be important; concerns exist with regard to the cramped indicative layout of the bungalows to the rugby pitch and LGS coach and car park extension – much more separation space would be required to lessen amenity conflicts, (for example, stray balls, noise and light impacts). It is envisaged that a robust planting belt between the two uses, perhaps atop a low (~2m) bund, would be required at detailed landscaping REM stage.

6.89 The existing built form to the southwest of the site is noted, including commercial development in the form of a public house and hotel (approved for extension under 19/01009/FUL). The public house and hotel are approximately 8m to maximum height and in this regard they are similar to their residential surroundings. The public house and hotel are also smaller than the indicative footprint of the proposed extra care building.

6.90 In response to site context, the extra care building is indicated to be set against a mature backdrop of trees on two sides. It is positioned farther away from London Road. The indicative design suggests that its massing could be broken up into three main elements, with a further kink to the western element to soften the massing. Its potential positioning, backdrop and massing/materials demonstrate how the relatively large size of the building could be mitigated.

6.91 The care home building and the loosely spread out bungalows are proposed on land between the existing residential/commercial development to the southwest and the larger, more massy buildings which occupy the LGS site to the east. In this regard, it

could be argued that the development would create some visual linkage between these current islands of development in the countryside.

6.92 However, in fundamental development plan policy terms the Outline development site is not adjoining the existing or committed built up area of Great Glen; the site conflicts with Local Plan Policy GD2 in this regard. The countryside location of the Leicester Grammar School site was approved on its own merits and based on deleted local and national policies. Similarly, the area of residential and commercial development to the south of the site does not make the development of the site acceptable in policy terms. The proposal would present as fitful and disconnected development in the open countryside. The proposal would exacerbate, rather than cohere, the sporadic built form of its surroundings, in reference to the residential development to its south (Erringtons Close, Foxpond Lane and Spion Kopje) and north (Chestnut Drive at Stretton Hall), which are themselves disjointed from the village of Great Glen and read as detached pockets of urban development.

6.93 The applicant’s LVIA concludes that the wider landscape can accommodate the Outline elements of the development. In terms of landscape capacity and sensitivity there is no reason to disagree with this assessment. However, this does not mean that the proposal represents cohesive and acceptable town and country planning.

6.94 Overall, the indicative development of the site is considered to cause low levels of visual harm. It would not enhance the natural and local environment. The loss of countryside would negatively impact on “the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital” (NPPF Para 170). Landscape/visual harm is compounded by the loss of two Category A1 Corsican Pines trees at the access point (discussed in more detail below in section h. ‘Impacts on Heritage Interests’). Although this harm is not considered to be substantial, it is considered to be significant in the context of there being a lack of justification for the development to occur on this site. Refusal of planning permission is recommended on these grounds.

6.95 (Note that harm to specific landscape features – trees – and their relationship to heritage assets is identified in the “Impacts on Heritage Interests” section below.)

g) Access and Highway Safety

6.96 The County Highway Authority (CHA) has reviewed the proposal in full and has provided final detailed comments (14.10.19). The CHA reports that the proposed site access and offsite highway works are acceptable, subject to 3 conditions and associated planning obligations. The HA findings are generally consistent with the applicant’s submission.

6.97 Public, Parish and other objections with regard to access and highway safety concerns are noted. However, there is no substantive evidence to suggest that satisfactory vehicle access cannot be delivered on to Chestnut Drive in terms of access geometry, visibility and pedestrian footway and crossing provisions. The applicant has provided assurance that a pedestrian link can be created on to London Road.

6.98 It is noted that the CHA Officer has commented on the sustainability of the site as follows:

“The applicant has submitted a comprehensive travel plan. General walking, cycling and public transport facilities around the development site are good. There are many locations that would be useful to residents and staff that are accessible from the site.”

6.99 However, as appraised in detail above in Section “c) Principle of Development, Including Locational Sustainability”, the development is not judged to be compatible in planning terms with its location. The site/development would be segregated from the physical community, shops and services of Great Glen (and Leicester). Furthermore, the extra care and elderly housing nature of the development affects the usual tests of pedestrian, cycle and public transport accessibility.

6.100 The CHA recommends 3 Conditions related to access and highway safety:

1. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until such time as the access arrangements, footway connections and offsite highway works shown generally on WYG drawing number SK0002 Rev. H and WYG drawing no. A090070-456_SP01 Rev: J have been implemented in full; 2. Vehicular visibility splays provided at the site access; 3. Construction Method Statement.

6.101 Following appraisal of technical consultee advice and taking in to account public representations, it is judged that the proposal accords with Development Plan and national policies with regard to delivering safe access.

h) Impacts on Heritage Interests

6.102 The applicant’s “Archaeological and Heritage Desk-Based Assessment” (Ref A090070-456) discusses South Lodge (also known on the HER as Stretton Hall Gate Lodge (MLE22210). On page 30 it is stated:

“As previously stated, it is situated on the adjacent south-western corner of the site and has a historical relationship with the application site in the form of being the gate lodge to the nearby Grade II* Listed Stretton Hall (1178302) since the post-medieval period.

Whilst the asset currently has some form of screening in place in the form of large, tall deciduous trees, its curtilage at the southernmost borders does share boundaries with the application site, and there are gaps between the screening for access (Photographs 16 and 17). With the proximity to the site, and the intervisibility (regardless of the present trees) between the application site and the asset, it will have a negative effect on the setting of the asset and may amount to some material harm to the asset. Similar to the recommendations for Crick’s Retreat, it may also be proposed that the design of the application site development take into consideration a sympathetic design towards the asset of Stretton Hall Gate Lodge. This could be in the form of the height and density of the buildings, and the possible incorporation of design features of the local vernacular in cladding or design.”

6.103 I concur with the above statement in terms of any development on the site needing to be sympathetic to its surroundings and of good design. However, opposite to the findings of the Archaeological and Heritage Desk-Based Assessment, it is not judged that the remaining heritage significance of the non-designated Stretton Hall Gate Lodge is related to its setting next to an undeveloped arable field. Significant urban development has already occurred in the immediate locality; there is built

development to the south and Chestnut Drive has been constructed to modern highway standards – all of this is in nearer proximity to the Gate Lodge than that which is currently indicated. Beyond the screening foliage/trees immediately around the Lodge and across the application site to the east there is the visible effect of the large LGS complex. Subject to suitable REM design, it is considered that the proposal would have a neutral effect on the setting of the Gate Lodge in terms of its development of an adjacent arable field – the arable field in its own right is not judged to be a component of the Gate Lodge’s setting which makes a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset. Similarly, it is considered that the proposed development of the arable field itself would not, in principle, affect the setting of the Grade II* Listed Stretton Hall.

6.104 Its heritage significance is obviously found in its designed aesthetic as a robust example of a Gate Lodge, possessing architectural character, detail and attractive materials. However, a substantial part of its heritage significance is judged to be derived from its historical association with Grade II* Stretton Hall, having been constructed as its former southwestern gate lodge adjacent to the ‘London to Manchester’ turnpike road. The driveway to the Hall is shown on old maps to have run to the east side of the Gate Lodge. The historic route appears to be discernible on aerial images, as indicated here:

6.105 What remains discernible on the ground is a linear collection of approximately 9 mature and early-mature Corsican Pine Trees.

(Source: Arboricultural Report, April 2019, p.11)

6.106 The proposed vehicular and pedestrian access into the Outline proposal site from Chestnut Drive would result in the loss of two Corsican Pine trees (T058 and T065). These Corsican Pines are identified by the applicant’s arboricultural consultant as highest order Category A1 trees. Further to the arboricultural consultant’s assessment, the Corsican Pines are judged to have heritage value. The trees form part of a remnant linear arboricultural-planting feature in the landscape which articulates the relationship between the “Stretton Hall Gate Lodge” (South Lodge) and Grade II* Listed Stretton Hall. The trees are judged to be of particular significance/value given their age, limited remaining number and discernible linear arrangement/association with the former driveway which led between the southern Gate Lodge and Stretton Hall. Historic Maps in the Archaeological and Heritage Desk-Based Assessment indicate that the trees were planted between 1862 and 1886. This would accord with their 18-20m height and early-mature to mature categorisation in the applicant’s Arboricultural Report.

6.107 Other than being an attractive line of tall, conspicuous, high quality trees (which themselves are possibly worthy of TPO, noting the findings of the applicant’s Arboricultural Report, the LCC Tree Officer’s TEMPO assessments and the current threat to the trees demonstrated by this planning application), the trees are also judged to be the primary remaining landscape component that visually articulates the immediate route northwards from the Gate Lodge in the direction of the Hall. The trees remind us of the physical connectivity between the two buildings and their functional relationship. They are a feature of the wider setting of Stretton Hall and a vestige of the entrance feature and trackway link between the Lodge House and the Hall; for example, they articulate the previous Hall owner’s arboricultural interests in creating an entrance avenue and aesthetic effect for arriving visitors. The trees are judged to be an important component of the setting of the Gate Lodge and indeed the Listed Hall. To remove 2 of the trees and compromise the linear arrangement is judged to detract from the contribution which the trees make to setting, both individually and as a group. In diluting and detracting from setting, the significance of

the heritage assets in terms of their historically interconnected form and function would be harmed.

6.108 Although at face value the removal of two trees could appear to be negligible in impact given, for example, the land area of the wider site and the number of high category trees found within it, the effect of the proposal on this particular historic avenue of trees is judged to be important. The harmful effect is judged to represent a low-to-moderate degree of less than substantial harm on the heritage significance of the Gate Lodge’s relationship to Grade II* Listed Stretton Hall. The proposed dilution of the tree line as a landscape feature would further curtail and interrupt the historic legibility of the Gate Lodge. Besides the Gate Lodge name and parts of the modern Chestnut Drive route, there is little else other than the line of Corsican Pines which tangibly articulates the linkage between the access Lodge and the main Hall.

6.109 The HDC Conservation Officer has asked that “harm to these trees is minimised as part of this development”. Notwithstanding the applicant’s submissions with regard to why the particular route of the access has been chosen (and why they consider it should not be amended), it is not considered that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that an equally acceptable access (in terms of highway safety and design) cannot be provided to the development.

6.110 It is noted that there are no Corsican Pines in the other east-west and north-south linear tree belts on the wider site. The Woodland Trust advises that the planting arrangement of the east-west and north-south linear tree belts suggests that they were planted as “shelterbelts”. The elevated topography of the field over the Sence valley to the east is noted. The east-west and north-south tree belts appear to be classic late 18th / early 19th century estate landscape planting associated with Stretton Hall’s agricultural landscape setting. Other than appropriate health and safety works for good arboricultural management (e.g., dead/dying/dangerous tree works), these tree belts are not affected by the proposal.

6.111 With regard to Grade II Listed assets 39 London Road (1180229) and Cricks Retreat (1061599), the Archaeological and Heritage Desk-Based Assessment advises in Section 12 “Mitigation Recommendations and Conclusions”:

“In order to mitigate the negligible degree of less than substantial harm to the significance of this listed building, the consideration of screening in the form of trees or similar is undertaken between the application and the asset is likely to negate such harm.”

6.112 The above cited paragraph describes 39 London Road and Cricks Retreat as if they were one asset with a singular significance. While they obviously have a close historical and spatial relationship, the approach in the Archaeological and Heritage Desk-Based Assessment is not considered to be appropriate. For example, it is judged that the heritage significance of 39 London Road which is derived from its setting has been more greatly affected by the development of LGS than that of Cricks Retreat. In the same vein, the proposed development may have greater or lesser impacts on the setting of each Listed asset independently – with different effects on the significance of each asset.

6.113 Notwithstanding a debate about the approach adopted in parts of the Archaeological and Heritage Desk-Based Assessment, it is considered that the proposed development on arable land – by virtue of its type, 5.5m maximum height in closer proximities, quantum, distance separation, potential to implement robust screen planting, and existing development in the locality – would not have a negative effect

on the setting of 39 London Road or Cricks Retreat. The effect on these Listed assets is considered to be neutral.

6.114 The public benefits of the proposal are considered to be compromised by the location of the development. While, when taken out of site context, a proposal for a 60 bed C2 Use extra care building and 34x 1 and 2 bed bungalows is positive and carries evidence-based public benefits (in terms of District need), the proposal is fundamentally in the wrong location. The public benefits can be identified as a boost to the construction industry and ancillary services, as well as staffing and servicing employment generation in operating the development. However, there is no evidence that these benefits could not be delivered if an alternative access were proposed which did not result in heritage interest impacts. Therefore, less weight is attached on this matter. On balance, it is judged that the low-moderate less than substantial harm to heritage interests which has been identified above is not outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme. Refusal of permission is recommended on these grounds.

i) Residential and General Amenities

6.115 Layout and detailed design matters which would determine amenity relationships are not being fixed/assessed at this stage. It is judged that there is sufficient space within the site to deliver acceptable amenity relationships in terms of light, avoidance of overbearing and suitable privacy standards (noting HDC SPG on these matters).

6.116 However, as already described in this report, there are concerns with the indicative layout in terms of the tight spatial arrangement of bungalows to the shared boundary with the proposed LGS rugby pitch and LGS coach and car park extension. This matter has been flagged by Sport England as a potential concern. Inter alia, Sport England has stated (25.06.19):

“Sport England guidance suggests that facilities which are a within 40m of residential properties are likely to cause issues…”

These comments appear to be directed at the athletics track (grass athletics track with in-field sports for LGS’s own curriculum/sports use).

6.117 It would seem that the sport of rugby has the potential to create equal to higher levels of noise. The pitch edge is considerably nearer than 40m separation from the indicated bungalow plots. This indicative layout has led the HDC Environmental Health Officer to comment that they would “like to see more information on the mitigation scheme for the proposed sports hub on both the external and internal noise that occupants of the proposed residential care homes may experience”.

6.118 While the positioning of the Full / LGS elements of the scheme is fixed, there is judged to be space within the Outline site to satisfactorily mitigate amenity conflict/harm, for example through greater distance separations, bunds, fencing and screen planting.

6.119 While the residential site may have some commercial limitations through its proximity to noise generating sporting facilities, it is considered that satisfactory amenity standards could be achieved subject to further appraisal at detailed design stages.

j) Archaeology

6.120 It is judged to be sufficiently clear (from the applicant’s Archaeological and Heritage Desk-Based Assessment and the site’s location with regard to Listed assets and non- designated HER assets) that the site is likely to contain heritage value in terms of evidential significance – the value derived from the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity. The applicant’s report indicates that outstanding archaeological considerations can be satisfactorily secured by planning Condition.

6.121 LCC Archaeology has commented that the proposals include operations that may destroy buried archaeological remains that are present, but that the archaeological implications cannot be adequately assessed on the basis of the currently available information.

6.122 It is unclear whether LCC Archaeology’s comments apply equally to the Outline site area and the Full site area. Notwithstanding, the planning application site area encompasses all of this land and the application is being determined on this basis. Allowing the proposal to proceed without understanding the potential effect of the application on the significance of such non-designated heritage assets is not reasonable; a balanced judgement as to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset cannot be undertaken.

6.123 It is judged that, presently, the proposal fails to accord with the Development Plan and the Framework in respect of archaeological matters. Refusal of permission is recommended on these grounds.

k) Ecology

6.124 Detailed and protracted appraisal of ecology matters has taken place during the course of the application.

6.125 An updated “Parameter Plan: Landscape” (Rev:5) has been submitted to address a final outstanding objection from LCC Ecology regarding Great Crested Newt protection. The County Ecologist requested the re-issuing of “the landscape plan omitting the reference to the SUDs, but showing the retained GCN pond and where the biodiversity mitigation as set out in the ecology report will be located”.

6.126 The applicant has stated that “the GCN mitigation measures (including the retention of the pond located adjacent to London Road, new ponds and an area of wet grassland) set out in the Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy are acceptable to the applicant and can be secured by means of a planning condition referencing the recommendations of the Strategy.”

6.127 As with the details of any SuDS scheme, it is judged that ecological considerations can be satisfactorily addressed by condition. The proposal is judged to accord with Harborough Local Plan Policies GD8 and GI5 in terms of protecting and enhancing ecological interests.

l) Flooding and Drainage

Surface Water and SuDS

6.128 The LLFA has considered the application and confirmed that “the proposals are considered acceptable to the LLFA and we advise the following planning conditions

be attached to any permission granted.” The 4 Conditions recommended by the LLFA are considered to offer satisfactory protection of flooding and surface water drainage interests.

Foul Water Drainage

6.129 Severn Trent Water has returned comments observing:

“Foul is proposed to connect into the public foul water sewer. The flood risk and drainage assessment details that sewer modelling was required as a response to the Severn Trent Water pre development enquiry. This has been undertaken and an operational risk has been identified to the local sewage pumping station and that capacity improvements may be required before flows from this development are connected to the drainage network.”

6.130 STW has not recommended a foul drainage planning condition. Mindful of the applicant’s submission and STW’s response, a foul drainage condition is not considered to be necessary.

6.131 The application is judged to accord with Local Plan policies and national objectives with regard to flood risk mitigation and drainage considerations.

m) Contaminated Land and Air Quality

6.132 The HDC Contaminated Land and Air Quality Officer has not objected to the proposal, subject to the addition of two planning conditions.

6.133 There is no evidence to suggest that the Outline development could not be delivered in a manner which protects resident from contaminated land and air quality risks.

6.134 Equally, there is no evidence to support an objection on grounds of significant and demonstrable harm to the Kibworth AQMA.

6.135 It is concluded that the Outline development is acceptable in these respects.

Conclusion

6.136 Five grounds for refusal of Outline planning permission have been identified above. It is not considered that the public and other stated benefits of the scheme (including the significant weight attached to the 60 bed care home and 34 bungalows residential provision, care provision, employment growth, economic development and countryside location near to LGS) or any other material considerations of the Outline scheme outweigh the policy conflict and concomitant harm which has been identified. The application has been submitted in hybrid format and the refusal reasons are weighed in the collective balance against the Full part of the application.

Part 2 – Full application for Sports pitches and facilities, including grounds maintenance building and pavilion/changing facilities building, together with landscaping, additional parking and access for Leicester Grammar School a) Principle of Development and Business / Employment Development

7.1 Local Plan Policy GD3 is clear in stating that development in the countryside will be permitted where it is required for “outdoor sport and recreation and associated buildings”. Local and national policies also support proposals which benefit the continuance of existing businesses, or enable their expansion – this is on the basis that it protects or creates jobs and economic growth.

7.2 On page 1 (last paragraph) of the applicant’s 01.11.19 “Further Supporting Statement – Extra Care proposals” it is stated that the proposal is part of the “long-term aim of Leicester Grammar School to enhance the sports facilities available to the school and wider community.”

On page 2 (second paragraph) it is indicated that the proposal “offers wider community benefits to the Parish of Great Glen and Harborough District.”

However, the sports facilities are predominantly proposed for school pupil use only.

7.3 Sport England tabled significant concerns about the original proposal, on the basis that it was not justified by local (District) and cross-authority evidence of need for a community accessible athletics facility. In response, the applicant scaled back their objectives, stating that the athletics facility would be “provided to meet the needs of LGS only, and will not be available to the public or other athletics clubs.” (‘Response to Sport England’; 03.09.19). The applicant also clarified to Sport England that the facility would be marked out on a grass surface (rather than a synthetic surface) and latterly has removed the 8x 18m high floodlights from the proposal.

7.4 The amended proposal has overcome Sport England concerns and is now judged to be commensurate with school pupil curriculum use.

7.5 The applicant has also stated that the cricket pitch would be for school pupil use only. This would ensure that the facility would not detract from the sustainability of the nearby Great Glen Cricket Club. The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) have observed (25.06.19 comments):

“The nearest cricket facility for the community is Great Glen CC which is located very close to the development. The club have 2 senior teams and have junior cricket at younger age groups all of which are active in 2019. In the PPS the club stated a need to improve their own facilities including improvements to the actual playing square. The PPS suggested the club had spare capacity on their facilities.”

7.6 Given the relevance of consultee comments with regard to the athletics facility and cricket pitch being proposed as school pupil use only (which has been put forward by the applicant and endorsed in their statements relating to need), it is judged to be reasonable and necessary to add a planning condition restricting the use of the athletics facility and cricket pitch to be for school pupil use only.

7.7 Following qualification by the applicant and reconsultation, the Rugby Football Union (RFU) have advised (through Sport England) that “The continued and extended community use for Leicester Tigers developing player programmed is welcomed.” (12.09.19). Sport England has recommended that the community access to the rugby pitch (and associated changing room etc. facilities) is secured by a Community Use Agreement condition. Sport England has agreed the wording of this condition (see para 4.11 above).

7.8 Sport England, the Rugby Football Union (RFU) and the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) support the proposal in principle. Sport England have observed “However, if the provision of sports facilities, specifically the athletics track, is intended to mitigate against the impacts of the housing development, by creating a community sports facility, then this is not supported by emerging evidence and is not considered sustainable.” (25.06.19).

7.9 The proposal is not considered to conflict with HDC’s Playing Pitch Strategy (Feb 2018) or draft Built Sports Facility Strategy. HDC’s Playing Pitch Strategy states (bold highlight added):

“Rugby provision on school sites Some of the secondary schools and independent schools in the district have rugby pitches on their sites, but other than for the Robert Smyth Academy, none are available for community use, and the Robert Smyth pitch is only used on an occasional basis by Market Harborough RFC. Kibworth, Robert Smyth and Leicester Grammar all require additional rugby pitch space for curriculum needs, as does Welland Park which occasionally uses the pitches at Market Harborough RFC for their matches. The details of rugby provision on each school site and the use by the community is given in Appendix 7.”

Appendix 7 “Schools, Pitches and their Community Use” states:

7.10 It appears likely that the proposed sports pavilion (first floor) may be part of an expanded business offering by LGS for venue hire facilities (for example, along with facilities currently available for hire, such as the LGS main hall/auditorium.) This has not been pointed out by the applicant, but could carry some business development/sustainability benefits and associated employment and local economic benefits.

7.11 The ancillary buildings and development associated with the sporting facilities (the pavilion, maintenance building, additional bus/coach and car parking extension to the existing LGS car park and the overflow grass surfaced carpark) are considered to be acceptable in principle.

7.12 The enhancement of LGS curriculum sports provision and the development of the private school business is judged to be the main positive aspects of the Full proposal. Overall, the proposed development is judged to accord with local and national policies in principle.

b) Infrastructure Contributions

7.13 The Full part of the application is not considered to generate a requirement for infrastructure contributions.

c) Agricultural Land Classification

7.14 As evaluated in the Outline part of this report, given the intermediate Grade 3 classification of the arable land, the amount of land take and that a large portion of the site is a relatively reversible land use (e.g., grass rugby, athletics and cricket pitches), it is judged that harmful effects on contemporary agricultural interests and the ecological benefits of BMV would not be significant.

d) Landscape Character Impacts and Design Considerations

Grounds Maintenance Building

7.15 This building measures 195sq.m in gross internal floor area. It would be ~3.75m high to its eaves and ~5.95m to ridge.

Elevations materials would be:

• red brickwork to ~1m high with green aluminium cladding above; • green aluminium doors; • green aluminium roof; • black fascia and rainwater goods.

7.16 The proposed Grounds Maintenance Building is judged to be satisfactorily in terms of its positioning and its levels. Its ground level would sit approximately 3.5m below the parallel level of Chestnut Drive. Its design (including in terms of size/mass/height and materials appearance) is judged to be appropriate for its use and rural context. Its construction is justified by the proposed provision of good quality sports facilities which would require regular maintenance.

Sports Pavilion

7.17 The sports pavilion is a large building measuring approximately 30m x 30m in footprint. It would be ~8.65m high (ground level to top of parapet). The building would sit approximately 2m below the parallel level of Chestnut Drive. It is noted that the main cladding material has been selected as a “Camouflage RAL 110 50 10” green colour in order to offer some blending with its wooded/rural backdrop. The plans have been amended so that two sets of external stairs (which access the external terraces) either fall underneath the terrace structure or tuck around the side of the building. While the building could be argued to be somewhat utilitarian in design, it is a functional building. It is mainly justified by the sports pitches/tracks. It is set away from the public highway and on lower ground, against a robust wooded backdrop. While it would have some impact on the character and appearance of the site and wider countryside, it would be seen in a legible context of sports pitches. It is not considered to lead to significant harm which would warrant refusal of planning permission.

Sports Pitches (1x Rugby Pitch, 1x Athletics Track & Field, 1x Cricket Pitch)

7.18 The sports pitches themselves are all grass based (except for minor elements such as long jump). While the character and appearance of the site would change from arable farmland to a maintained grass surface, it is judged that the creation of the sports surfaces themselves would not cause significant harm.

Ball Strike Netted Fence to serve the Cricket Pitch

7.19 The applicant has submitted a “Labosport” ball strike assessment. Currently, the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) only recognise Labosport UK Ltd as a qualified (research backed) and indemnified source of ball strike risk assessment.

7.20 The applicant has explained the following in their “ball strike netted fencing proposal & specification” document (03.09.19):

“A Labosport Ball strike assessment has been completed in which the likelihood of cricket balls hitting any persons or property outside the application site has been assessed and mitigation measures proposed.

Labosport report uses a baseline standard of Community/Amateur level of play when estimating the potential max. (worst case) speed and projectile of cricket balls being struck. This generates an estimate of the likelihood of number and speed of balls that may exceed the site boundary.

In this case, the proposed cricket pitch is for school use not for community/amateur level, hence the level of play is not expected to generate worst case speeds and trajectories estimated by Labosport.

However, in light of recommendations, Leicester Grammar School trust has reviewed the potential risk should balls strike third party persons or property and proposes to install a recommended reduced specification of netted fencing to both Chestnut Drive and proposed overflow car park boundaries. This specification is as follows:

Western boundary ‐ 6m high ball strike netting fence ‐ 125m long to boundary Northern boundary ‐ 3m high ball strike netting fence ‐ 75m long to boundary

75mm square hollow section ‐ Powder coated green steel posts with horizontal tensioned line wires at 5m centres. Sports netting spanning between posts with reinforced 1m high rib lines attached to wires using carbine hooks.

Netting ‐ 2.3mm black polypropylene netting with a 40mm square mesh and hard wearing thick knotted twisted twine.”

7.21 It is noted that black polypropylene netting is proposed. It should be green in order to reduce its visual impacts. This could be controlled by planning condition.

7.22 Subject to a green colour for posts and netting, it is considered that the ball strike netted fence would have only minor visual impacts. While it is 6m high and runs for 125m along Chestnut Drive and 75m along the northern boundary at 3m high, it is lightweight and visually permeable in its appearance. It would not look out of place when seen/read in the context of the cricket pitch, the other grassed sports fields, the overflow parking area, the maintenance building and the sports pavilion. Chestnut Drive is already somewhat urbanised by the highway engineered roadway, pavement and 6m high street lighting at regular intervals. The ball strike netted fence would follow Chestnut Drive in a linear and legible manner. The ball strike netted fence is justified to enable the provision of a cricket pitch on this site – the field is not wide enough to move the cricket pitch to the east, or elsewhere, to remove the need for ball strike netting. On balance, the visual impacts of the ball strike netting fence are not judged to cause significant harm to the proposed development and its surroundings.

Additional parking areas

7.23 The additional coach/bus and car parking area is proposed in a parallel arrangement to the existing LGS complex. It would be spatially and functionally well related to the school’s existing access and vehicular circulation infrastructure. Existing boundary screening is proposed to be retained between it and the existing site/buildings, with just two access (one in, one out) puncturing through. This design would maintain beneficial screening of the existing site/buildings.

7.24 The overflow parking area for ~50 cars has been amended from a gravel surface to a grass-grid method of construction so that it retains a green natural surfacing. Its visual impacts would be minor.

Conclusion

7.25 The Full development is not judged to lead to significant visual harm to the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding countryside. It is appropriate in its rural location and well related to the existing school complex/infrastructure. It is well contained by mature tree screening belts and further planting is proposed around its boundaries to enhance screening (this can be controlled by condition in event of approval).

e) Access and Highway Safety

7.26 The County Highway Authority (CHA) has reviewed the proposal in full and has provided final detailed comments (14.10.19). The CHA reports that the proposal is acceptable, subject to 6 conditions. The CHA advises:

“Site Access The sports hub will be served by the school’s existing primary site access onto London Road. No amendments are proposed to this site access. A new, secondary point of access will be taken off Chestnut Drive to serve the overflow parking area, as shown on drawing no. 000-PEV-XX-XX-DR-C-0200 Rev. P01. This secondary access is generally acceptable; however, improvements to the radii are required and the LHA has advised a suitably-worded condition accordingly.

Personal Injury Collisions There have been no recorded personal injury collisions (PICs) within the vicinity of the site in the last five years.

Trip Generation The applicant previously stated that additional trips associated with the sports hub are likely to occur during weekday evenings after school activities have finished and during weekends i.e. outside of network peak hours. Additional information has been provided which further clarifies the intended use of the sports hub.

The sports hub is not expected to result in a significant intensification of trips associated with the wider site’s existing various sports and other extra-curricular activities. The most intensive site use, in terms of vehicle trip generation, is likely to be an inter-school or regional sporting event. Such events are anticipated to occur approximately twice per year, with up to 300 participants and 100 spectators; generating 100 cars and 5-6 coaches. An event management plan will be submitted which will include details of a site parking management strategy for such large-scale events.

The school has an existing parking provision of 137 spaces. This development proposal involves an extension of this main car park by 100 spaces, in addition to an overspill car park which can accommodate approximately 50 cars. The additional parking provided as part of this application could therefore reasonably cater for all associated sports hub trips.

Based on the information submitted by the applicant, the LHA is satisfied that there is sufficient parking capacity within the site to accommodate the traffic generated by the

sports hub development, even in the unlikely event that the school’s existing parking provision is at full capacity during the periods when the sports hub will be at its peak level of use.

The majority of development trips will be distributed outside of local network peak hours, and the LHA does not consider that this application will serve to exacerbate any existing capacity issues.

Conclusion The LHA acknowledges local concerns regarding the existing trip generation level associated with the school. However, the nature of the planning process is such that a development need only mitigate its own impact rather than mitigate existing highway concerns. The information submitted indicates that the proportionate impact of this development proposal is not unacceptable or severe in terms of highway safety or capacity. As such, subject to the following conditions and contributions, and within the context of the National Planning Policy Framework, the LHA concludes that it would not seek to resist this planning application on highway grounds.”

7.27 Public, Parish and other objections with regard to access and highway safety concerns are noted. However, there is no substantive evidence to suggest that safe and suitable access would not be provided.

7.28 Following appraisal of technical consultee advice and taking in to account public representations, it is judged that the proposal would not be detrimental to highway safety. The proposal is considered to accord with Development Plan and national policies in this respect.

f) Impacts on Heritage Interests

7.29 As discussed in Part 1 of this report, it is not judged that the remaining heritage significance of Stretton Hall Gate Lodge (non-designated heritage asset) is related to its setting next to an undeveloped arable field. Significant urban development has already occurred in the immediate locality; there is built development to the south and Chestnut Drive has been constructed to modern highway standards – all of this is in nearer proximity to the Gate Lodge than the proposed LGS sports and parking facilities. Beyond the screening foliage/trees immediately around the Lodge and across the arable field to the east there is the visible effect of the large LGS complex. The proposed rugby pitch and additional car/coach parking facilities are spatially and visually well related to the existing LGS site. It is considered that the proposal to introduce a rugby pitch and additional car/coach parking facilities (and associated landscaping) in the eastern parts of this field would have a neutral effect on the setting of the Gate Lodge. The proposal is not judged to denude a component of the Gate Lodge’s setting which makes a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset.

7.30 Similarly, it is considered that the proposed development of the site for the sports pitches and ancillary buildings/parking would have a neutral effect on the setting of the Grade II* Listed Stretton Hall.

7.31 The east-west and north-south linear tree belts on the site (which are historic landscape features) are not affected by the proposal.

7.32 With regard to impacts on Grade II Listed assets 39 London Road and Cricks Retreat (as well as non-designated heritage asset No.45 London Road), the proposal is

cohesively designed with the existing LGS complex and extends farther away. Subject to appropriate landscaping, the effect on these assets is considered to be neutral.

g) Residential and General Amenities

7.33 Given the school sports nature of the proposed development and distance separations and intervening foliage and trees (and, in instances, roads) between the site and surrounding residential properties, the development is not judged to lead to significant harm to existing neighbouring amenities. Floodlighting has been removed from the proposal and there is no evidence to suggest that the development would cause unacceptable levels of noise or other harm to residential or general amenities in the locality.

7.34 As described in Part 1 of this report, concerns exist with regard to the Full proposal’s impact on the Outline site. However, on its own merits the amenity impacts of the Full proposal are considered to be acceptable.

h) Archaeology

7.35 It is judged to be sufficiently clear (from the applicant’s Archaeological and Heritage Desk-Based Assessment and the site’s location with regard to Listed assets and non- designated HER assets) that the site is likely to contain heritage value in terms of evidential significance – the value derived from the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity. The applicant’s report indicates that outstanding archaeological considerations can be satisfactorily secured by planning Condition.

7.36 LCC Archaeology has commented that the proposals include operations that may destroy buried archaeological remains that are present, but that the archaeological implications cannot be adequately assessed on the basis of the currently available information.

7.37 It is unclear whether LCC Archaeology’s comments apply equally to the Outline site area and the Full site area. Notwithstanding, the planning application site area encompasses all of this land and the application is being determined on this basis. Allowing the proposal to proceed without understanding the potential effect of the application on the significance of such non-designated heritage assets is not reasonable; a balanced judgement as to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset cannot be undertaken.

7.38 It is judged that, presently, the proposal fails to accord with the Development Plan and the Framework in respect of archaeological matters. Refusal of permission is recommended on these grounds.

i) Ecology

7.39 Detailed and protracted appraisal of ecology matters has taken place during the course of the application.

7.40 Key LCC Ecology concerns related to the previously proposed floodlighting. These concerns have been removed by the deletion of the floodlighting from the proposal.

7.41 Subject to conditions recommended by LCC Ecology, the Full proposal is judged to accord with Harborough Local Plan Policies GD8 and GI5 in terms of protecting ecological interests.

j) Flooding and Drainage

Surface Water and SuDS

7.42 The LLFA has considered the application and confirmed that “the proposals are considered acceptable to the LLFA and we advise the following planning conditions be attached to any permission granted.” The 4 Conditions recommended by the LLFA are considered to offer satisfactory protection of flooding and surface water drainage interests.

Foul Water Drainage

7.43 Severn Trent Water has returned comments observing:

7.44 STW has not recommended a foul drainage planning condition. Mindful of the applicant’s submission and STW’s response, a foul drainage condition is not considered to be necessary.

7.45 The application is judged to accord with Local Plan policies and national objectives with regard to flood risk mitigation and drainage considerations.

k) Contaminated Land and Air Quality

7.46 The HDC Contaminated Land and Air Quality Officer has not objected to the proposal, subject to the addition of two planning conditions.

7.47 There is no evidence to suggest that the Full development could not be delivered in a manner which protects users from contaminated land risks.

7.48 Equally, there is no evidence to support an objection on grounds of significant and demonstrable harm to the Kibworth AQMA.

7.49 It is concluded that the Full development is acceptable in these respects.

Conclusion

7.50 Notwithstanding unresolved archaeological considerations, no other significant harm is identified with regard to the Full proposal when assessed on its own merits. The proposal carries planning benefits, primarily in terms of enhancing the sporting

provisions of the School and supporting the growth and development of this business and the pupils which pass through its doors.

8. Conclusion / Planning Balance

8.1 The Framework requires LPAs to grant planning permission for sustainable development. Paragraph 7 of the Framework states: “There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental.”

8.2 It is judged that the collective economic and social benefits of the Full scheme and the economic and social benefits of the Outline scheme are outweighed by the social, environmental and heritage harm of the Outline scheme (and the lack of archaeological information on the total site) which has been identified in this report.

8.3 The proposals have been submitted and considered as a whole. It is not known if the outline and full elements are mutually exclusive. It is, therefore, inappropriate to take a split decision, for example permitting part of the proposals and refusing another part. In any event, the benefits of all elements of the Outline and/or Full proposals do not make the hybrid scheme acceptable in its entirety.