Item No.2

Application No: P/12/0022/2

Application Outline Date 3rd January 2012 Type: Valid: Applicant: Jelson Ltd Proposal: Site for residential development, with associated access. Location: Land at Halstead Road, , , Parish: Mountsorrel Ward: Mountsorrel Ward Case Officer: Mr G Smith Tel No: 01509 632521

Description of the Application

The application site (15.77 hectares) is located to the north of Halstead Road currently agricultural land of three linked fields, on the western edge of Mountsorrel near the junction with Lane. The land slopes gently towards the south-west. To the west is the former railway line flanked by mature trees. To the north and north-east is Bond Lane which abuts the Mountsorrel Quarry alongside which runs part of the Leicestershire Round Walk which leaves Mountsorrel towards Charnwood Forrest. Bond Lane is within the Mountsorrel Conservation Area. To the south of the site is the Halstead Road Centenary Pastures which is a Local Nature Reserve (LNR). To the north is Bond Lane which is within the Mountsorrel Conservation area and further north the Mountsorrel Quarry which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Planning permission was refused for a similar scheme in 2010. This application seeks to overcome the six reasons detailed later in the report. An indicative layout has been submitted which differs from the previous application.

This proposal is for outline planning permission for residential development with access proposed in two positions off Halstead Road. The main access is an additional spur off the round-a-bout at the junction of Halstead Road and Walton Way and a second access road further west nearer to the existing junction with Willow Grove, opposite the Centenary Pastures. Although the application does not detail the number of houses it gives an indicative proposal which illustrates 315 houses representing 30 dwellings per hectare (this could rise to 326 if a higher density approach was chosen at reserved matters stage). The proposal incorporates the following:

o 10.5 hectares of residential development; o 3.06 hectares of public open space; o 2.21 hectares of structural landscaping;

It indicates intentions to develop across the site with landscaped buffer zones along the southern and northern boundaries, and with properties (or rear 32 gardens) abutting the western edge and a small number abutting the north- eastern edge near Bond Lane. The layout indicates hedgerow retention on the western and eastern edges.

The Design and Access Statement proposes housing on the western edge to a maximum height of two-storeys to reduce the impact of the development on the open countryside with higher buildings adjacent to the main thoroughfares facing onto open space. The Design and Access Statement refers to inclusion of homes for sale and affordable housing with a mix yet to be determined. The affordable homes will include homes for rent and shared equity properties.

The applicant’s planning statement refers to the provision of the following:

• A sizeable affordable housing element (30%) which will further allow for special local needs to be accommodated, including where there is evidence of demand, housing for older persons wishing to downsize. No evidence or further detail is submitted. • Four areas of open space which would allow opportunities for recreation. • Children’s play facilities would also be provided within the development. • Sustainable drainage ponds and reed beds would be located in the low part of the site adjacent to the meadow area. These features would enhance the ecological value of the site as well as its appearance. • The site lies on the edge of the village which is considered to be a suitable and sustainable location for development of the scale proposed. This view is echoed by the Council’s SHLAA. Mountsorrel has a wide range of local services including 5 convenience shops (including a supermarket), 2 doctors, a pharmacy, a dental surgery an opticians, a post office, several cash points, 4 public houses, 2 petrol stations, a library, a primary school and numerous leisure and community facilities. The village is also extremely well served by public transport with frequent and reliable bus services to Leicester and Loughborough. It is in recognition of the level of facilities and services on offer that the village is proposed (in the ‘Further Consultation’ version of the emerging Core Strategy) as a ‘Service Centre’, serving as a higher order centre for nearby villages. These local services are highly accessible via non-car modes, both in terms of proximity and ease of access. • It is noted that the evidence base that supports the emerging Core Strategy appears to recognise the sustainability of the service centres, including Mountsorrel, and their suitability to accommodate additional development.

Accompanying the application are the following documents:

• An indicative Masterplan layout; • Planning statement;

33 • Design and Access Statement which includes a ‘Build for Life’ Assessment; • Transport Assessment which includes a Travel Plan; • Archaeological Assessments; • Flood Risk Assessment; • Environmental Statement that addresses Ecology, Landscape and Visual Character; • A Tree Assessment; • A Ground Condition Survey; • Noise Assessment. • Heads of terms regarding infrastructure contributions to be secured via a Section 106 Agreement.

The summary of the Environmental Statement concludes the following:

1. The development will not have any impact on the nearby Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI’s Mountsorrel Main Quarry and The Buddon Wood and , and the Barrow Gravel Pitts). It identifies that the nearby Centenary Pastures LNR is likely to experience some additional visitor pressure due to the development and therefore proposes routes within the development for dog walking and recreation, and publicising the importance of the LNR. 2. The proposal is not considered likely to have significant impact on biodiversity. Appropriate mitigation is proposed. 3. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment concludes the following:

• The site is visually contained and the landscape impact will not be adverse; • The impact on the Leicestershire Round footpath will be minimal and mitigated through design; • The development provides the opportunity to provide a better urban/rural fringe than currently exists; • Nothing has been identified that is unusual or complex and which could not be dealt with through the adoption of a package of fairly standard planning conditions and obligations.

The applicant has provided draft heads of terms regarding the following contributions, which will be secured via a Section 106 Agreement:

• £2,049,792 for all three levels of schooling; • 30% affordable housing of which 75% will be social rented; • Unspecified maintenance sums for the site open spaced to be negotiated with the Borough Council. • Healthcare contributions as requested by the PCT; • £27.18 per 1 bed dwelling; £54.34 per 2 bed dwelling;£63.41 per 3,4,5 bed dwelling; towards libraries; • An acceptance to other reasonably justified contributions.

34 No detailed draft Section 106 or unilateral agreement has been received.

Development Plan Policies and other material considerations

The relevant part of the Development Plan for Charnwood is made up by the Regional Strategy (The East Midlands Regional Plan) and the saved policies of the Charnwood Borough Local Plan. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires applications for planning permission to be determined having regard to Development Plan policies unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

East Midlands Regional Plan 2009

The Secretary of State indicated in his 10th November 2010 letter to Chief Planning Officers that he intends to revoke Regional Strategies and this fact should be treated as a material consideration when determining applications for planning permission.

It is however the case that the East Midlands Regional Plan will remain in place until such time as statutory provisions to abolish Regional Strategies in the Localism Act are brought into effect. Consultation on the process to th instigate these changes ended on 20 January 2012 with abolition likely to occur following the legal challenge period later in 2012. The Regional Plan is therefore, for now, part of the statutory Development Plan which the Council must have regard to in the determination of this planning application. This means that the Council will need to continue to plan for housing delivery through the original targets identified in that Plan. The evidence base that supported the Regional Plan will remain a material consideration that can carry some weight in decision making.

Policy 3 Distribution of New Development

Development should be distributed on the following basis:

a) New development will be concentrated primarily in Principal Urban Areas (Leicester). c) Appropriate development of a lesser scale should be located in the Sub Regional Centres (Loughborough) d) The development needs of other settlements and rural areas should also be provided for. New development in these areas should contribute to: • Maintaining the distinctive character and vitality of rural communities; • Shortening journeys and facilitating access to jobs and services; • Strengthening rural enterprise and linkages between settlements and their hinterlands; and • Respecting the quality of tranquility where that is recognized in planning documents;

35 In assessing the suitability of sites for development, priority should be given to making best use of previously developed land and vacant or under-used buildings in urban or other sustainable locations, contributing to the achievement of a regional target of 60% of additional dwellings on previously developed land or through conversions.

Policy 12 Development in the Three Cities Sub Area Development should support the continued growth and regeneration of Derby, Leicester and Nottingham. This will be achieved by ensuring that the agreed Growth Point Programme of delivery for the 3 Cities and 3 Counties is achieved both in overall numbers of dwellings and agreed phasing. Outside Derby, Leicester and Nottingham, employment and housing should be located in the adjoining settlements.

Policy 13a Regional Housing provision The total housing provision for Charnwood is 790 per annum and total housing provision for 2006-2026 is 15,800. 330 of Charnwood’s annual provision of 790 should be within or adjoining the PUA.

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

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

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

6Cs Growth Point Draft Green Infrastructure Strategy

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

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

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

Saved Policies of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan (adopted 12th January 2004)

Policy ST/1-Overall Strategy for Charnwood - Seeks to set the overall framework for development, in the Borough, ensuring that needs of the community are met, and that features of the natural and built environment are protected and safeguarded where necessary. The policy aims to improve the quality of development through the layout of sites and trying to achieve sustainable development in a co-ordinated, comprehensive and consistent basis. It also states the following:

In identifying development needs of the Borough measures will be taken to amongst other things: 37

v) identify areas of Green Wedge and other open land necessary to preserve the separate identity of settlements and to ensure that as urban development takes place, undeveloped links to the countryside extending outwards from the urban areas are retained;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy EV/43- Percent for Art - seeks to ensure that there is either a contribution in lieu, or art is incorporated into the design of the development. 38

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy TR/6-Traffic Generation from New Development. This seeks to restrict development which through its impact results in an unsatisfactory operation of the highway system, or has a significant impact on the environment, unless

39 measures are proposed to overcome any harmful effects. In all cases measures should help to reduce car dependence and usage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Policies

Planning Policy Statement 1 - Principles of Sustainable Development

This sets out the government’s overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system by: • making suitable land available for development in line with economic, social and environmental objectives to improve people's quality of life; • contributing to sustainable economic development; • protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment, the quality and character of the countryside, and existing communities; • ensuring high quality development through good and inclusive design, and the efficient use of resources; • ensuring that development supports existing communities and contributes to the creation of safe, sustainable, liveable and mixed communities with good access to jobs and key services for all members of the community.

40 It reiterates that, where the development plan contains relevant policies, applications for planning permission should be determined in line with the plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The guidance states that planning should seek to maintain and improve the local environment and help to mitigate the effects of declining environmental quality through positive policies on issues such as design, conservation and the provision of public open space. There is an emphasis on good design, which should contribute positively to making places better for people. Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted. High quality and inclusive design should be the aim of all those involved in the development process. Although the appearance and architecture of individual buildings are clearly factors in achieving these objectives, securing high quality and inclusive design goes far beyond aesthetic considerations. Good design should: • address the connections between people and places by considering the needs of people to access jobs and key services; • be integrated into the existing urban form and the natural and built environments; • be an integral part of the process for ensuring successful, safe and inclusive villages, towns and cities; • create an environment where everyone can access and benefit from the full range of opportunities available to members of society; and, • consider the direct and indirect impacts on the natural environment.

Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing

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

41 Paragraph 72 states that Local Planning Authorities should not refuse applications solely on the grounds of prematurity.

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

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

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

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

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

PPS 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation sets out the statutory framework to safeguard the natural heritage and states that planning decisions should aim to maintain, and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity conservation interests. The PPS emphasises that the national wildlife heritage 42 is not confined to designated sites; statutory and non-statutory sites, together with countryside features which provide wildlife corridors, links or stepping stones from one habitat to another, all help to form a network necessary to ensure the maintenance of the current range and diversity of flora fauna and land form features.

PPG 13- Transport- For new developments, PPG13 suggests that maximum levels of car parking provision should be set for broad land-use classes and locations, but it is unlikely to be appropriate in future for development to be provided with as many car parking spaces as there are employees. In this way, reduced levels of parking will act as a demand management tool as part of package of measures designed to influence and encourage more sustainable travel behaviour. Housing development should be located wherever possible so as to provide a choice of means of travel to other facilities and where there is a range of transport provision. The overall strategy should be to avoid significant incremental expansion of housing in villages where there is a likelihood of predominantly car commuting to urban centres and where travel needs are unlikely to be well served by public transport.

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

PPS 25 Development and Flood Risk- this guidance aims to ensure that flood risk is taken into account to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding. Individual land owners are responsible for managing drainage on their land and prevent adverse impacts on neighbouring land. Flood Risk Assessments should be submitted as part of the application process, where necessary, and be proportionate to the risk and consider the risk of flooding to the development as well as the risk to flooding from the development. It sets criteria for assessing appropriate development in different areas at flood risk. In this regard, new development should be steered towards land in zones 1 and 2.

Circular 05/2005 states that a requirement through a planning obligation for the provision of an element of affordable housing in residential or mixed-use developments with a residential component should be in line with Local Development Framework policies on the creation of mixed communities.

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

Leicestershire Minerals Core Strategy and Development Control Policies (adopted October 2009)

Policy MSC10 - To safeguard deposits of sand gravel and limestone amongst other things, that are of current or future economic importance through the identification of Mineral Safeguarding Areas in the Site Allocations Document;

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

Supplementary Planning Documents

Affordable Housing (SPD)

clarifies the Local Plan policies on affordable housing and increases the proportion of affordable homes the Council will seek on a new housing scheme to a minimum of 30%. It sets clear guidelines about how the Council will determine the type and tenure of dwellings as well as their design and layout.

Developer Contributions (SPD)

Sets out the circumstances that might lead to a need to require a contribution to the provision of infrastructure, community services or other facilities. However, recent appeal decisions have confirmed that Inspectors will not support obligations (even if agreed by the appellant) unless the planning authority can demonstrate that they are specifically related to the proposed development. Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations introduced on the 6th April 2010 prescribes the limitations on the use of planning obligations. Accordingly it is unlawful for a planning obligation to be taken into account when determining a planning application for a development that does not meet all of the following tests: 1. It is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. 2. It is directly related to the development. 3. It is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. The advice is that local planning authorities should ensure that the policy tests are set out in the committee or delegated reports where a section 106 agreement is to be negotiated. The obligations should be reasoned in the reports in light of the tests and clear advice that if the contributions do not satisfy the tests, that no weight should be attributed to them in the decision making process. There is a substantial risk that a decision to grant planning permission could be challenged as being unlawful if the planning authority cannot demonstrate that the tests have been met.

Leading in Design Supplementary Planning Document (February 2006)

Encourages and provides guidance on achieving high quality design in new development. It indicates that the Council will approach its judgements on the design of new development against the following main principles. • Places for People – Successful developments contribute to the creation of distinctive places that provide a choice of housing and complementary facilities and activities nearby. Good design promotes 44 diversity and choice through a mix of compatible developments and uses that work together to create viable places that respond to local needs. • Accessible Places – Successful developments are easy to get to and move through, with short, direct public routes overlooked by frontages. • Safe Places – Successful developments are safe and attractive with a clear division between public and private space. Good design promotes the continuity of street frontages and the enclosure of space by development which clearly defines public and private areas. • Sustainable Places – Successful developments are able to adapt to improve their long-term viability and are built to cause the least possible harm to the environment. It also incorporates resource efficiency and renewable energy measures to take into account the long-term impact of a development. • Distinctive Places – Successful developments respond to their context and build on the features that make an area special.

Supplementary Planning Document Section 106 Developer Contributions.

This document considers the infrastructure requirements necessary for a development.

Local Development Framework

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

The Settlement Hierarchy, Capacity Assessment (December 2011)

States the following:

• Mountsorrel has taken the most housing growth outside Loughborough over the past 20 years and lost many job opportunities. Here the priority is increased employment land to better balance homes and jobs in the village. • In assessing accessibility to bus travel it is assumed people are more likely to travel by bus rather than car if the maximum walking distance to a bus stop is 400m. This threshold is adopted in Boroughwide Local Plan Policy TR/5 and the County Council’s Highways Transport and Development (HtD). Para 3.81 of HtD states that generally maximum walking distances to bus stops in urban areas should be 400m and desirably no more than 250m. In rural areas walking distances up to 800m are appropriate as the main role of bus travel is providing access

45 rather than transport choice. In the current assessment 400m is taken as the appropriate threshold for Service Centres. • Public transport - reasonable accessibility for the eastern part of village to frequent Leicester- Loughborough-Shepshed-Coalville and half hourly to Loughborough bus routes but western areas are less well served. • Quorn, Rothley and Sileby are within 5km and have access by bus. Cossington, Cropston and Swithland are also within 5km but have no bus access to Mountsorrel. • Roads and traffic - The Highway Authority do not identify any significant problems in the village, apart from a number of junctions with substandard visibility (Halstead Road/Rothley Road, Halstead Road/Swithland Lane, Linkfield Road/ Rothley Road/ Mountsorrel Lane); excessive vehicle speeds on Halstead Road; and the unsuitability of Bond Street for increases in vehicular, pedestrian and cycle traffic.

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

Other Material Considerations

Five Year Supply

The Council published an Assessment of Five Year Supply in December 2011 which identifies that the Borough has a 2.95 year supply of deliverable housing sites.

Green Infrastructure

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

CABE. Building for Life 2008.

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

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

National Planning Policy Framework: Consultation Draft. This is a consultative document that will carry limited weight at present, but still needs to be considered. It incorporates the presumption in favour of sustainable development that is central to the policy approach in the Framework, as it sets the tone of the Government’s overall stance and operates within and through the other policies in the document. Its stated purpose is to send a strong signal to all those involved in the planning process about the need to plan positively for appropriate new development; so that both plan-making and development management are proactive and driven by a search for opportunities to deliver sustainable development, rather than barriers.

It does this by placing increased emphasis on the importance of meeting development needs through development plans, on the need to approve proposals quickly where they are in line with those plans; and on the role of the Framework as a basis for decisions where plans are not an adequate basis for deciding applications.

It requires local councils to allocate an additional 20% of sites against their five year housing requirement. The Government’s policy objective is that local councils should plan to meet their full requirement for housing and ensure there is choice and competition in the land market to facilitate the delivery of homes on the ground. The preferred option is that local councils identify additional ‘deliverable’ sites for housing. The proposal is for this to be a minimum additional 20 per cent on top of current five year land supply. For example, in the first five years, local councils should identify sites to meet at least 120% of the annual housing requirement.

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that with respect to any buildings or land within a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a duty on the local planning authority to do all that it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder in its area. The potential impact on community safety is therefore a material consideration in the determination of this planning application.

47 Relevant Planning History

Permission refused for a similar development (P/10/0501) in 2010 for the following reasons:

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

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

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

48 4 - It has not been demonstrated that the existing highway network can satisfactorily accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed development.

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

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

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

Responses of Statutory Consultees

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

49 1. Speed measurements taken along Walton Way and Halstead Road (between the proposed roundabout access and Rothley Road) reveal high vehicle speeds and the proposed development would exacerbate the existing situation. The proposed development if approved would consequently lead to danger for road users and not be in the best interests of highway safety.

2. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that their proposal will be in a location where services are readily and safely accessible by walking, cycling and public transport. Leicestershire County Council policy contained in the Local Transport Plan 3 seeks to deliver new development in areas where travel distances can be minimised, and genuine, safe and high quality choices are available (or can be provided) for people to walk, cycle and use public transport facilities and services nearby. The LTP3 reflects Government guidance contained in PPS1, PPS7 and PPG13.

3. The existing junction of Hastead Road with Swithland Lane has substandard visibility. The proposal, if permitted would consequently result in an unacceptable form of development and could lead to dangers for road users.

4. The applicants has failed to demonsrate that the existing road network can satisfactorily cater for the traffic generated by the proposed development.

Natural England Natural England does not object to this proposal on ecology grounds. It requests conditions be attached.

County Council – Developer Contributions - Based on the indicative scheme submitted the County Council request contributions towards the following: • Libraries totalling £19,150; • Education, o Primary School £914,685.16 (to be for a new school). o Humphrey Perkins High School £545,223.19 o Quorn Rawlins Community College £578,187.54

The Head teacher regarding the impact to the nearest primary school the County Council as Education Authority responded regarding the following:

‘The actual number of primary pupil places will generate around 76 (this could potentially equate to 11 children per year group). The contribution is calculated on 314 houses with 2 (plus) bedrooms, hence the value of the contribution and the pupils are expected pro-rata as and when the developments are completed. The one bedroom properties will not generate education contributions. Should the developer choose to alter the configuration of properties then the allocation requested will alter to reflect this. The Christ Church & St Peter's Primary School has an admission number of 58 giving a total pupil capacity of 406 pupils, and taking into account 50 existing housing development (excluding Halstead Road), the school is expected to be full for the next 5 years. The County Council has requested a developer contribution of £911,855 towards the cost of providing additional primary school places should the Halstead Road development be approved planning permission. A new school of 450 pupils would be expected to have a site area (excluding buildings) of circa 1.84 hectares. Christ Church & St Peter's Primary School has a site area (excluding buildings), of circa 2.3 hectares. Therefore this funding would be used to expand Christ Church & St Peter's Primary School or another primary school within the area to serve the development. An element of flexibility in the Section 106 agreement would be required to enable us to meet the educational needs generated by this proposed development.’

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

Primary Care Trust - considers a required extension to the Alpine House surgery providing additional accommodation for 763 patients in the form of an extension to the cost of £159,634.86

Severn Trent Water Authority request a condition be attached.

The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) objects for the following reasons:

• In their view prematurity could be a reason to refuse development located outside development limits where a 5 year land supply argument exists; • The proposal is contrary to Policies CT/1, CT/2 and CT7; • The site is an area of particularly attractive countryside, part of the Charnwood Forest area, and the very rural character of the site should be retained and the proposal if allowed would be a substantial departure detrimental to the character of the landscape and open countryside. • Refers to PPS1 ‘A high level of protection must be given to most valued townscape and landscape’ • The applicants Transport Assessment fails to deliver access to a regular bus service within 400 metres of the development. As such the site is unsustainable.

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

Dust

51 Currently the main stocking area for the quarry lies to the north of the application site. It is believed however that Lafarge are also proposing to utilise some of this area for the deposition of soils and overburden arising as a result of proposed development work. As a result quarry operational areas would lie 35 metres from the proposed residential development site. Stockpiles and overburden materials are likely to generate emissions of fine dust during certain weather conditions that can be carried for some distance. Whilst controls at the quarry are in place to minimise statutory nuisance dust and these are currently under review, some off -site deposition is possible and could impact on local amenity leading to complaints.

Following a Detailed Assessment of fine particulate matter in the area of Mountsorrel, the Borough Council concluded that there were breaches of the National Air Quality Objective. An Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) has therefore been declared which borders the development site. During consultation with existing residents a significant number felt that the AQMA should be widened to include more properties over a wider area. Under the provisions of the Environment Act 1995, the Council must include all properties where the National Objective levels are being exceeded. Whilst the Council could extend the area further it was felt appropriate to include only those properties predicted to be above the National level. Currently the application site has no relevant receptors. Due to practical difficulties, the air quality assessment undertaken by the applicant only included a short term survey. The equipment used does not comply with the EU equivalence standard for particulate monitors and can not be relied upon to establish or otherwise an exceedance of the Air Quality Objectives without some grounds of uncertainty.

Noise

An acoustic report has been prepared in support of the application. The report fails to take account that full operations at Mountsorrel Quarry commence at 06:00, and continues into the evening and night-time periods. An assessment against PPG24 also considers an 8hour LAeq period whilst MPS2 considers a1 hour LAeq period which could distort results. The proposed development site brings residential properties significantly closer to operational activities at Mountsorrel Quarry and notwithstanding the mitigation and controls provided by Lafarge such controls may not negate complaints. Whist noise may not occur at statutory nuisance level some impact on local amenity is likely given the current operating hours and level of activity.

Blasting

Blasting levels are controlled by current planning conditions. Whilst this should ensure that limits are below levels likely to cause structural damage to properties, individuals’ perception of blast vibration vary. Some

52 individuals find very low levels disturbing therefore the potential for complaints to arise from future occupiers must be acknowledged.

Future Extension of Railway Activities

Lafarge is under an obligation, through a S106 agreement as part of its mineral planning permission, to maximise the proportion of stone removed by rail from the quarry. The former Great Central Railway Swithland branch line runs between the quarry and the proposed development site. Whilst there are a number of practical and planning matters to resolve before the branch line can re-open this remains a significant consideration likely to affect the development site which needs to be addressed.

The Borough Council Senior Ecologist

The applicant has submitted an Ecological Impact Assessment which has identified features and habitats of ecological interest and recommended some measures to mitigate, compensate and bring some enhancement to the application site. The proposed mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures conflict with proposals within the information supplied by the applicant, and this raises question about the delivery of these measures as follows:

• Existing semi-improved meadow in the south-east corner of the application site has identified that the meadow would qualify as a Local Wildlife Site, and refers to the management of the retained meadow to enhance its floristic diversity. However the Design & Access Statement proposes the re-grading of the meadow, to assist in reducing the risk of flooding of existing properties. • The potential impact of the proposed development on Halstead Road Centenary Pasture Local Nature Reserve (LNR) is acknowledged and a specific footpath link to the LNR would be avoided. However ‘Access and Movement Plan’ of the Design & Access Statement proposes a pedestrian link from the development site to the LNR. • Hedgerows on site are identified as habitats of principal importance, some hedgerows will be subject to small severance and that it is unlikely to result in any habitat fragmentation effects. The Master Plan gives a different picture: the two internal hedgerows would each be breached 9 times. Additionally, the western hedgerow and most of the eastern hedgerow would fall within residential curtilage and the appropriate management and long-term retention of such hedgerows cannot be adequately safeguarded. • A buffer zone of 3-10 metres would be retained either side of all retained hedgerows. The Illustrative Master Plan shows insufficient space allowed along the internal hedgerows for them to survive as a valuable habitat: the proximity of the built development either side (dwellings, footpaths, access roads) would makes their long term retention and appropriate management as wildlife habitats and wildlife corridors very unlikely, further degrading the local biodiversity network. 53 • The indicative layout shows areas of frontage landscape along Halstead Road, an area of Public Open Space along Bond Lane and Public Open Space (POS) running east-west in the centre of the site. However, habitat connectivity along a south-north axis would be seriously compromised. Centenary Park to the south of the application site would also end up increasingly cut off from the local biodiversity network, with only the area to the west of the application site providing a tenuous link to the wider countryside. The previous indicative layout (P/10/0501/2) incorporated buffer zones /areas of POS around the site’s perimeter with additional tree planting, fewer breaches in the internal hedgerows and would not have resulted in such a high level of habitat fragmentation and isolation. • With regards to enhancement, proposed open green space would be seeded with a wildflower mix and that the area of more formal design would be cut twice a year, whilst the other areas would be left to develop into rough grassland. This is unlikely to happen as the Design and access Statement shows the public open space treated as amenity grass areas. It is highly likely that an amenity cut will be required. • Although the Illustrative Master Plan refers to native woodland planting, the areas shown for woodland planting are minimal, shown as a thin belt next to Bond Lane, a small triangular corner and along the eastern boundary. This will not deliver any meaningful woodland habitat. • The proposed sustainable ponds to be shaped to provide a range of bank angles and heights, to encourage diversification in flora and fauna. Flood attenuation ponds very rarely deliver any benefit to biodiversity as these ponds are often steep-sided, deep holes in the ground. They should not be expected to represent an asset to biodiversity, unless the applicant can at this stage guarantee that the volume required for flood compensation will be compatible with shallow gradients and diversity in contour and profile.

Planning Policy Statement 9 states that networks of natural habitats should be protected from development, and where possible, strengthened by or integrated within it. The planning proposal fails to maintain the local network of natural habitats, and would result in habitat fragmentation and isolation across the landscape.

PPS 9 also states that development proposals provide many opportunities for building-in beneficial biodiversity features as part of good design. There is little proposed within the application in terms of biodiversity enhancement.

At the time of writing the Council’s Build for Life Assessment has not been completed.

The Leicestershire Constabulary

A request for a contribution of £190,890 for the following: o To address the accumulative effects of numbers of housing over a geographical area; 54 o Provide new or supplementary buildings to house resources or to facilitate community participation and engagement; o Provide additional vehicles and other resources; o Extend communication infrastructure; o Provide CCTV cameras (registration identification); o Enhance crime reduction measures; o Increase efficiencies associated with prevention of crime;

(No information is given as to how this infrastructure contribution would meet requirements associated with the application site.)

Without the above contribution being met the Leicestershire Constabulary objects to the impact on policing therefore being unsustainable.

The design has an unnecessarily high degree of permeability in the layout having a loop road, high levels of footpaths and open space undermining community safety objectives where residents can take ownership of space around them.

The Architectural Liaison Officer recommends the layout considers the following:

• The use of non-opening ground floor living room windows overlooking parking and public realm areas; • Low fences to all front gardens; • See-through fencing near parking courtyards; • Integration of landscaping, lighting and boundary treatment considerations.

The Environment Agency

The Environment Agency does not object subject to compliance with recommended conditions. The Agency requests confirmation from Severn Trent Water regarding sufficient capacity in the sewerage systems, including Rothley Sewage Pumping Station, and at Wanlip Sewage Treatment Works to receive flows arising from this proposal without causing pollution and further deterioration of the receiving watercourse.

Leicestershire County Council (Minerals Authority).

The application site lies within an Igneous Rock Mineral Consultation Area. This corresponds with a 500 metre buffer zone around the permitted area at Mountsorrel Quarry. The quarry is one of 4 rail linked quarries in the County which are of significant importance because of the volume of material they supply into the market (both locally and into other regions of the Country) and the quality of the material produced (of which there are relatively few alternative sources in England).

55 The County Minerals Authority is not aware that the application site itself contains any workable mineral deposits. It is however concerned that occupiers of residential property on the application site may be affected by existing and potential future operations at Mountsorrel Quarry, as a result of blasting, dust and noise emissions. These potential impacts should be taken into account in deciding whether the application site is suitable for housing.

The existing planning permission related to the quarry contains conditions aimed at minimising the impact of operations on residential amenity. These conditions are currently being reviewed in accordance with the Environment Act 1995. The review process aims to allow the County Council to update the existing mineral planning permission by imposing modern operating, restoration and aftercare conditions. It is anticipated that a new set of conditions for the quarry will be determined within the next few months. Charnwood’s Environmental Health officers have been involved in discussions regarding mitigation measures to reduce noise and dust emissions from the site.

The existing planning permission requires that blasts are below a specified vibration limit which is set at a level that is well below the level at which cosmetic or structural damage to property is likely to occur. The current restrictions on blasting at the quarry relate to any inhabited building, so would cover any new housing built in the vicinity of the quarry. Each individual’s perception of blast vibrations varies however. Some individuals find very low levels disturbing and find it difficult to accept that they offer no danger to property. Whilst the proposed new housing is no closer to the current permitted extraction area than existing properties on Rushey Lane and Kinchley Lane, there is nevertheless the potential for complaints to arise as a result of blasting at the quarry.

The main stocking area for Mountsorrel Quarry lies to the north of the application area off Bond Lane. Some of the material stockpiled within this area is fine material which is prone to being windblown during certain weather conditions. Planning permission was given for modifications to the quarry stockpile area in 2010 (planning permission 2010/1706/02) which has provided additional screening for the stocking area. Given the proximity of the proposed new housing, however, there is still potential for complaints as a result of dust emissions from stocking operations.

Similarly, given the proximity of the site to operational areas at Mountsorrel Quarry, there is the potential for complaints to arise as a result of noise from quarrying and associated operations.

Other Comments Received

Mountsorrel Parish Council resubmitted its previous objection considering the amended scheme does not alter its position thereby objecting on the following issues:

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

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

57 • The proposal fails to fully or properly address Policy CT/7 and its impact on the Charnwood Forest Area of Particularly Attractive countryside (APAC). The applicant has misrepresented or omitted significant elements of the policy.

• The Mountsorrel Hills and Mountsorrel Common form the eastern edge of Charnwood Forest. The site is part of the continuity and connection of landscape components. The proposal cannot maintain or enhance the character and appearance of this element of the APAC landscape. The Parish therefore endorses the view given by the Borough Council’s policy assessment.

• The Design and Access Statement is neither reliable nor appropriate in its approach to the site and its setting for the following reasons: o It refers to existing facilities but fails to analyse their ability to cope at present or with additional burden, o It is focused on land ownership boundaries rather than the area at large; o Its policy summary omits the vital policy CT/7 of utmost importance for design consideration; o The access and movement consideration does not stand up to close examination in that Bond Lane is an unlit lane with no footpaths, very steep and does not lead to the village centre and very much a part of the Area of Particularly Attractive Countryside (APAC), a north-south connection through the site to it cannot perform the function suggested and will not benefit the Walton Way area, seemingly supported by the Highway Authority view. o The Masterplan fails to demonstrate how the proposal integrates with the existing village, producing a somewhat isolated development; o The design approach incorrectly focuses on the Soar Valley area rather than the Swithland Zone within which the site falls which underpins the failure of the Design and Access Statement. o The sketch views portray a large housing estate with little relevant local distinctiveness with no regard to the APAC, o The contention that the proposal will provide a more successful urban edge to Mountsorrel is unjustifiable. The Parish considers the existing urban edge successfully enables the flow of Charnwood Forest into the western edge of the village, part of a structural connection of high ground between Mountsorrel Common and Mountsorrel Hills. It is open attractive landscape and a key element of green infrastructure for a settlement that has rapidly grown in recent years. o The contention that the accommodation mix would reflect the needs and aspirations of the local community is unsubstantiated as the developer chose not to consult. o 58 • The applicants transport assessment fails on the following grounds: o The relationship to existing facilities is poor with most in lower Mountsorrel a significant walking distance; o The site itself does not have good access to public transport and the Parish strongly doubts the diversion of bus routes will take place; o The proposed enhancements of a footpath on the northern side of Halstead Road, improved waiting facilities to the nearest bus stop, the use of rail travel as an attractive alternative to car commuting, and benefits of a Bond Lane Link, are token references that are an unacceptable basis of a sustainable transport solution. Therefore the main thrust of the Transport Assessment is a car based solution contrary to planning policy aims. o The routes and junctions to the A6 bypass are inadequate including Linkfield Road, Danvers Road, The Green, Mountsorrel Lane, Swithland Lane, and Wood Lane.

• The applicant contends that additional housing will sustain the existing facilities of the village. However the Parish Council contends that the existing facilities need to expand to meet the current need. Reference to the Policy Officers view regarding the evidence base consideration is still emerging and therefore consideration regarding the scale of growth supportable by existing services is yet to be made.

• The Parish highlights in detail the concerns of the Primary School and the Surgery. It further highlights that whilst contributions may be made the certainty that these will be spent on the locally affected schools and surgeries is a significant concern therefore having no benefit to the local community.

• High levels of affordable housing may be unwelcomed given the high levels provided in Mountsorrel;

• The proposal could contribute significantly towards the proposed Memorial Centre and local policing in seeking to meet concerns of social cohesion;

• Support is given to the view of Lafarge in terms of the relationship between the housing and the quarrying activities.

• The development will disadvantage the proposed Project;

• The new Coalition Governments aspirations regarding Local Authorities setting their own housing supply targets, and the Conservative party’s aim to create an open source planning system requires community’s to take an active part in shaping their own surroundings. This proposal does not accord with such aims and as such should be rejected. 59

The Head teacher from Christ Church St. Peters Church of England Primary School objects to the proposal resulting in an increase in the population of the village which will have a detrimental effect to the current inhabitants. This school has a number on roll of 436 far in excess of the number it was designed for. It is anticipated that this number will continue to rise over the next few years.

The projected number of additional pupils for a development of the size planned is at least 75. The site of the school does not have sufficient space to accommodate such an increase. Playground space is currently at a premium. Already children are taught in temporary classrooms and children and have breaks at different times to ease congestion on the playground. Rothley Road is very busy at the beginning and end of the school day. It is highly likely that traffic will increase if planning is agreed. This will present an increased risk to children coming to and from school along narrow pavements with poor lines of visibility.

The Mountsorrel Railway Project

The project aims to restoring a section of the Mountsorrel Railway to act as a linear museum, showcasing Mountsorrel history. It is hoped for the Great Central Railway to run passenger trains from the GCR at to Bond Lane on the outskirts of Mountsorrel to form a link with Stonehurst Family Farm via their tractor trailer rides to provide an educational and recreational resource for the area. Almost half of the railway has so far been restored. Projects with the primary schools of Mountsorrel, Quorn and Rothley have occurred. The project seeks to restore the ecology around the track bed with over 400 native trees and bushes recently were planted alongside the railway.

The project objects to the proposal on the following grounds:

• having modern housing being to the track bed just south of Bond Lane, for a distance of approximately 200m. • it will increase in trespass onto the track bed; • an increase in the anti social behaviour that may accompany social housing; • the total number of 315 homes is too high for Mountsorrel village to cope with. The village road system will not be able to support the additional traffic, which will bring an added burden to the dangerous Swithland Lane/Halstead Road junction, as well as Mountsorrel and Rothley villages as residents try to reach the A6 bypass. School and doctors surgeries are also full with little or no scope for expanding at their current locations.

If permitted conditions should be imposed regarding the following:

60 • the developer provide a 10m wide buffer zone created along the full length of the railway's boundary with the development. • the developer constructs a minimum 2m high earth bank along this full length and plants trees and bushes on the bank. It is our hope that this bank will effectively act as a visual and sound screen protecting the railway from the nearby houses and vice a versa. • the developer constructs a sympathetic yet unobtrusive trespass proof fence along the full length of this earth bank, the design should consider the historical feel of the railway. • the percentage of social housing be kept to a minimum.

The Quorn Parish Council objects on the following grounds:

• the extra traffic which will be generated by this development and the fact that Wood Lane both in order to access the A6 to travel to Leicester or Loughborough via Quorn village centre and in order to access Quorn’s service facilities. Wood Lane, which is a minor road with severe bends, narrow in places and has an enormous amount of quarry traffic already using the road, is not suitable for the extra volume of traffic that this development will generate.

The Rothley Parish Council objects on the following grounds:

• the pressure it will place upon the village school and the doctors surgery which serves both communities and have no capacity; • The traffic implications with most of the vehicles from the proposed development having to use Rothley roads to exit.

Lafarge the Quarry Operator has objected for the following reasons:

• The applicant’s environmental statement fails to address the impact on the future operation of the Quarry; • It is contrary to Policy MPS1 and Policy 37 of the RSS; • The proposal is contrary to Policies MSC10 and MDC8 of the Leicestershire Minerals Core Strategy. • Given the allocation of the Quarry and the application site being within a safeguarding area any development would hinder the ability of an operator to extract minerals and is therefore not in accordance with the Development Plan. • The proposal threatens to sterilise the delivery of a nationally important mineral resource and may impact on the ability to deliver minerals if they exist within the application site; • Charnwood Borough Council has implemented an even stricter noise attenuation measures on the operation of the Quarry. The applicant's noise assessment does not take full account of the operation of the quarry and is therefore flawed data and cannot be relied on. As residential development gets nearer to the quarry it is likely to result in future complaints from new residents. 61 • As the application is outside of development limits the above consideration should be considered in the balancing exercise set against the need to provide a 5 year housing supply. Lafarge considers the harm caused by the development outweighs any benefit gained.

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

Letters received from residents in the area.

Letters received from over 150 residents objecting on the following grounds:

• Detrimental to Highway Safety in terms of: o It will generate unacceptable levels of increased traffic; o The immediate highway network, in particular link roads to the A6 (Linkfield Road), is insufficient to cope and will entice vehicles to’ rat-run’ alternatives in the open countryside being detrimental to highway safety. o It is contrary to Policy TR/6; o A development of this size and in this location would justifiably require the completion of a new link road from the A6 to Walton Way to allow all the extra traffic to easily and safely reach the A6 with minimal disturbance to the village and existing community. o The junction at Halstead Lane and Wood Lane must be improved; o Impact on the use of Danvers Road; o An increased use of the poor highway network will have impact on pedestrian safety in the area; o Public transport access is poor in the area; o The Traffic Impact Assessment is flawed; o As the local school cannot meet demand children will have to be driven to the nearest available being contrary to transport aims of reducing car use; o It was unfair for the public consultation period to occur without comments from the highway Authority; o The proposed Travel Plan is meaningless to highway safety concerns; • Insufficient facilities and poor access to existing services especially shops and medical facilities. The local school is currently operating over capacity and has no ability to expand; • The proximity to National Grid overhead pylons, with the Government supported link to a possible increase in Childhood Leukaemia; • Impact on local policing; • The potential danger of Radon Gas from the granite bedrock; • The close proximity to the recently filled landfill near Cufflins Pit Lane and Bond Lane; • Loss of good agricultural land, developments should initially be on brownfield sites;

62 • Does the open space provision accord with policy, how will it be maintained? • Suggested density seems higher than recommended minimum; • The unsustainable location with poor pedestrian access to services; • Insufficient Youth and adult facilities exist and the proposal will add burden to concerns of ant-social behaviour from youths; • The quality of education of nearby schools will suffer if classroom sizes increase; • Pre-school facilities are also over burdened and will not be able to cope with a large influx in children; • Healthcare facilities are currently unable to cope; • Social housing is not needed; • It represents the further loss of open countryside representing urban sprawl and has a detrimental impact to particular attractive countryside; • Proposed houses will be too near to the quarry and will suffer structural damage from quarry blasting, noise and air quality; • Flooding implications to Halstead Road and surrounding areas exacerbated by the quarrying activities; • There is no local need for this level of housing; • Insufficient local shops to meet the needs of future residents and the services are not closed to the site therefore suggesting it is unsustainable; • It will be detrimental to wildlife in the area; • It will result in an overbearing impact to nearby residents; • It will endanger the re-opening of the Volunteer rail link and any tourism benefit.

Consideration of the Planning Issues

The key considerations include the following issues:

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

The Principle of Development

The site lies beyond the limits to development as identified in the adopted Local Plan and the development of this site is therefore contrary to the 63 development plan. However, weight must be given to the other material considerations listed above and particularly the guidance in PPS 3 that requires a five year supply of land to be maintained at all times. The Draft National Planning Policy Framework, whilst endorsing the need for development to be sustainable, requires, in effect, a 6 year supply. Currently the Council has a total of 2.95 years supply of land for housing across the borough (1.08 years supply in the Principal Urban Area (PUA) and 4.90 years supply in the Non PUA). It is the case that this Council cannot currently provide a 5 year supply of land for housing. Therefore the application needs to be considered by the criteria detailed in paragraph 69 of PPS3. National guidance in PPS3 states that local planning authorities should not refuse planning applications solely on the grounds of prematurity.

Evidence from appeal decisions (for example at Stanage Road, Sileby) indicates that Inspectors apply considerable weight to the PPS3 housing supply situation in reaching their decisions.

Assessing suitability, availability and achievability

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

A key piece of evidence base in assessing the site’s suitability is the ‘Settlement Hierarchy Review’ published in September 2008 to inform the Core Strategy. This assessment considered the availability and accessibility of services and facilities, settlement size and function and the geographical distribution. On the basis of this evidence, the Core Strategy Further Consultation document identifies Mountsorrel as a Service Centre, where a smaller scale development to that proposed in the Main Urban Centres will be appropriate in locations within or adjoining the settlement limits.

Further evidence is detailed in The Settlement Hierarchy, Capacity Assessment (December 2011). This indicates the proximity of the services and in particular the regular bus route. The plan indicates that the site is substantially outside an 800 metres distance from the centre of Mountsorrel. It is the applicant’s view that the site is in easy walking distance of the comprehensive range of local amenities and within 12 minutes walking distance of the regular bus service. Considerations and discussions with bus operators of the provision of additional bus services are reported in the supporting information although no actual provision is proposed. However it appears clear that there is no proposed regular bus service within 400 metres 64 of the site, and according to the County Highway Authority who objects on this issue, parts of the site would be approximately 1300 metres from the existing route. In this context it appears likely that the development will result in a largely car reliant development. Therefore it is considered that the applicant has not demonstrated satisfactorily that the site is in a sustainable location.

Availability

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

Achievability

The developer previously provided evidence that there are no cost factors, market factors or deliverability issues that would prevent the development from coming forward within five years. The Planning Statement outlines the developer’s commitment and confidence in delivering the site within the next five years.

The impact on the Charnwood Forest

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

The proposal’s location adjacent to the Leicestershire Round footpath, a key green link from the Soar Valley to the Forest, raises major concerns about how a development of the scale proposed will protect and enhance the Charnwood Forest. This proposal would have a significant impact on the undeveloped rural character of the landscape, as viewed from the footpath, which is very characteristic of the Charnwood Forest. The views across the site from the footpath are an important element of this green link from the 65 centre of Mountsorrel providing residents with very accessible gateway to the green infrastructure of the wider forest landscape to the west of Mountsorrel, out towards Swithland Reservoir. This long distance Leicestershire Round footpath is specifically identified as one of three key elements of green infrastructure features in the Charnwood Forest Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment for the Swithland Landscape Character Area.

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

The key landscape issue is the negative impact of the proposal on the important green link of Leicestershire Round footpath and Halstead Road and therefore the community’s access to, and relationship with, the Charnwood Forest.

This application has altered the indicative layout in that the previous scheme included a large area of open space centrally located within the site, whereas this has been redistributed to a large area on the eastern perimeter (the land near the quarry area) and a slight increase in open space between the proposed housing and the Bond Lane area and an area referred to as native woodland planting.

The Applicant’s assessment of the impact on the landscape.

The Applicant’s assessment seeks to accord with best practice for landscape assessment which requires a structured and consistent approach. In assessing landscape character it refers to ‘the particular sense of place of different areas of landscape’; ‘how people perceive it’, and highlights the importance of the ‘sensitivity of visual receptors’. It states the following:

• The most sensitive receptors may include: o Users of outdoor recreational facilities including public rights of way, whose attention or interest may be focussed on the landscape; o Communities where the development results in changes in the landscape setting or valued views enjoyed by the community; o Occupiers of residential properties with views affected by the development.

The assessment then categorises landscape sensitivity and magnitude of effect in terms of being high, medium and low and gives relevant criteria. Of high sensitivity is the following: 66 o Occupiers of residential properties with views affected by the development, o and users of outdoor recreational facilities including public rights of way where interest focuses upon the landscape.

In terms of magnitude impact, a high adverse category would be where the scheme would cause a noticeable deterioration in the view.

The statement summarises that the overall visual effect is determined by combining the sensitivity of the receptor with the magnitude of visual change requiring professional judgement to determine the significance.

The applicant considers the Charnwood Forest Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment (CFLSCA) and gives considerable weight its findings concluding that the site itself does not include any of the main characteristics of the Swithland character area such as thick tall hedgerows and trees and rural character, and the assessment considers the site is a farming landscape common in the wider landscape and not distinctive as part of the Charnwood Forrest Area to the west. The assessment considers the landscape is generally well managed but is more influenced by the existing urban edge and power lines and is contained by the existing trees abutting the former railway. It includes landscape photos taken mainly from points along Halstead Road to the south and Bond Lane and the Leicestershire Round Footpath to the north. The applicant includes an appendix detailing the visual impact assessment from these viewpoints.

The applicant’s assessment is summarised as follows:

• The site has a limited visual envelope; • Views of the development would be possible from surrounding roads and lanes but limited by roadside hedgerows and trees; • No impact would be greater than slight/moderate adverse; • The relatively flat nature of the site means that only the outer edge of any new development would be visible; • Views would be possible from Halstead Road, Willow Lane and Walton Way (Balmoral Road is screened by Peats Barn) • Close range views from Bond Lane but this would be filtered and framed by landscape planting; • Only restricted views from Kinchley Lane due to the tree belt, and wider views from the Mountsorrel Quarry. • It is considered that the development would inevitably change the character of the site itself; it would present a more appropriate edge to the urban area.

The applicant has included an estimated photo-montage of the development overlaid onto the view from the Leicestershire Round, and includes an artist’s impression of the development from this aspect in the design and impact assessment.

67 The applicant’s assessment has been carefully considered and the following views have been reached:

• The Leicestershire Round Footpath is an important route out of Mountsorrel. Travelling along it pedestrians experience a pleasurable mix of rural views from around the Castle area onwards and the users are not aware of the urban edge of Halstead Road. The character of this route is indicated on the applicants own photographic evidence, and the importance is highlighted in that it links to Switherland reservoir and Bradgate Park. If developed ramblers would meet a significant view of developed houses that would envelop the line of the footpath until passing the railway land a significant stretch of the footpath. • All of the receptors are of high sensitivity (Bond Lane is part of the Leicestershire Round Footpath). • The applicants Bond Lane viewpoint illustrates the very green and open nature of the site and has minimal relationship to the existing urban edge which is barely visible. As this route is used by the public on the Leicestershire Round Footpath the likelihood is that the landscape will be focussed by pedestrians/ramblers in this position. • The applicant has considered the site and views from Bond Lane to be affected by the urban edge of Mountsorrel which is just evident in the distance. The applicant considers that the impact of the development on the Bond Lane edge can be appropriately mitigated by a shallow depth of planting and open space. This appears at odds with the applicant’s view of how an urban edge impacts on the open countryside. It is the view of the Head of Planning and Regeneration that it is not likely that the planting and area of open space would hide or suitably mitigate the harm caused by the development when viewed from the Bond Lane aspect. • The Applicant’s own overlaid photo-montage indicates a significant extent of development on the Leicestershire Round aspect. However this is increased when the applicant’s own artist’s impression is considered. It is the view of the Head of Planning that both visual impressions indicate a significant visual impact on this sensitive receptor. • The developers own visual assessment considers the visual impact to be adverse (although only slight in his view) but not beneficial in any of the assessment cases. This contradicts his view of the opportunity to provide a more appropriate urban edge. It is the view of the Head of Planning that the existing edge of this part of Mountsorrel is an appropriate urban edge in terms of its impact on the landscape, and on the Leicestershire Round Footpath and the open countryside. • The Applicant fails to give suitable significance to sensitivity of the Leicestershire Round footpath and Bond Lane in his assessment and undervalues the impact the development will have. These lanes and footpath are appropriate to the Charnwood forest character area. • The Applicant’s view that the site is largely enveloped relies heavily on the tree screening (particularly the trees near the railway land). However the Applicant’s own photographic evidence from Rushey 68 Lane shows that the trees beyond in the distance and the ground are clearly visible through this belt. As the proposal indicates housing with gardens abutting this belt, it seems reasonable to assume the houses themselves will be visible especially at wintertime. Thereby increasing the visual impact from this aspect. • The view from Centenery Pastures indicates the wide open character of the site. It shows trees abutting the railway land and Bond Lane in the distance as the land gently slopes upwards. It is difficult to understand why the development will have only a low magnitude of impact as assessed by the applicant on this view.

Overall it is concluded that the applicant’s assessment underestimates the extent of the adverse impact caused by the proposed development. This view is mindful of the criteria used by the applicant in seeking a structured and consistent approach and has been arrived at by the use of the applicant’s own visual evidence but due to the failure of the applicant to identify the importance of the Leicestershire Round Footpath, and the Bond Lane edge, and the rural character of the site, the conclusions of the extent of adverse harm are different.

The scheme seeks to mitigate, by proposed landscaping measures, the impact of approximately 315-325 houses on this site. Whilst there maybe some merit in providing the green spaces proposed, the impact of this development on the Area of Particularly Attractive Countryside and therefore this link to the Charnwood Forest, and in particular the adjacent Mountsorrel Conservation Area, Leicestershire Round footpath link as it leaves Mountsorrel, is considered to result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the landscape. Therefore the proposal is considered contrary to Policies EV/1, CT/7, and Policy 31 of the East Midlands Regional Plan.

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

Priority for Brownfield Land

The Regional Plan also sets out a target for brownfield development of 60% for the East Midlands. This proposal is a significant greenfield development which does not make best use of previously developed land available in sustainable locations. Within Mountsorrel there are seven developable brownfield sites identified in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (March 2009) providing potential opportunity for approximately 200 dwellings. Across the Borough there are further previously developed sites available within urban areas and other sustainable settlements. These brownfield sites should be prioritised ahead of greenfield developments. However these brownfield sites are not being promoted for planning permission and there is a significant shortfall in housing land in the Borough which needs to be addressed in accordance with PPS3. If this site is was

69 found to be suitable for development it would be unreasonable to hold this site back in the hope a brownfield site will come forward.

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

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

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

The impact on Highway Safety.

The Highway Authority objects in that it has not been demonstrated that the existing highway network can satisfactorily accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed development. The proposed development if approved would consequently lead to danger for road users and not be in the best interests of highway safety. The existing junction of Hastead Road with Swithland Lane has substandard visibility. The proposal, if permitted would consequently result in an unacceptable form of development and could lead to dangers for road users.

The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that their proposal will be in a location where services are readily and safely accessible by walking, cycling and public transport. Leicestershire County Council policy contained in the Local Transport Plan 3 seeks to deliver new development in areas where travel distances can be minimised, and genuine, safe and high quality choices are available (or can be provided) for people to walk, cycle and use public transport facilities and services nearby. The LTP3 reflects Government guidance contained in PPS1, PPS7 and PPG13.

70

Impact on residential amenity of future residents and neighboring occupiers;

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

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

Impact on biodiversity;

Previously the Councils Senior ecologist did not object. However she considers that this proposal which in her view the mitigation measures proposed in the environmental statement are at conflict with other proposals within the design and access statement and overall have not been proven to be deliverable. Therefore the proposal does not meet the requirements of PPS9 and therefore adds to concerns that the site is not suitable.

Infrastructure considerations. The local community have made significant representations regarding the current overburdening of existing services in particular the local primary school and healthcare facilities. This is supported by the head teacher and doctors in question. However the County Council as Education Authority have stated that this funding would be used to provide a new primary school although no details are provided. Furthermore as the Primary Care Trust supports the provision of contributions to be directly spent on the surgeries in question. The applicant has indicated a willingness to meet all reasonable infrastructure requests. It is the Directors view that the local planning authority could not sustain a reason to refuse due to the inability of the local facilities to actually expand to meet the need.

Conclusion

This application is proposed outside the defined development limits of Mountsorrel and as such is contrary to the development Plan. However this is not sufficient reason to refuse the application by itself due to the current absence of a 5 year land supply in Charnwood. It is therefore the role of the local planning authority to weigh the benefit of the provision of housing against any harm caused in which the development breaches planning policies. Over 300 houses would be a significant contribution to the Council’s housing shortfall. However it is considered that the proposal is not ideally

71 located in terms of access to services which are predominantly beyond reasonable walking distances. Furthermore the access to a regular bus service is well beyond that recommended by the County Highway Authority and as such is likely to lead to a largely car reliant residential development and therefore is not a sustainable location. The Head of Planning and Regeneration considers the harm to the area of particularly attractive countryside to be significant. The proposed biodiversity enhancement measures have not been proven to be deliverable and fall short of satisfactory requirements. Furthermore the applicant has not proven satisfactorily that future occupants of the development will not experience nuisance of poor air quality and noise caused by the nearby Mountsorrel Quarry. For these reasons, it is not considered that the site is suitable to be released for housing development.

It is the Head of Planning and Regeneration’s view that these reasons combined outweigh any benefit gained in terms of meeting the housing supply need. It is therefore recommended that the application should be refused on the grounds that it is contrary to the advice contained in Paragraph 69 of PPS3.

The Highway Authority object and as such a separate reason regarding the proposal being contrary to policy TR/6 is proposed.

RECOMMENDATION

Refuse - Recommendation - for the following reasons:

1. It is established planning policy, at both national and local level, that new development should be permitted outside established settlements in exceptional circumstances only. These circumstances normally relate to an agricultural need. The application site is located in the countryside and in an area of particularly attractive countryside and the principle of the development of this site for housing is clearly contrary to existing saved Local Plan policies which are designed to protect the open countryside. The lack of a 5 year housing supply is a material consideration which must be weighed against this.

However, it is the view of the Borough Council that the development would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape which is designated as an Area of Particularly Attractive Countryside in the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan.

It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the site is suitable in terms of its sustainable location and accessibility to services in particular within 400 metres of a regular bus route.

It has also not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the site is suitable for housing in terms of its relationship to Mountsorrel Quarry. In the view of 72 the Borough Council as local planning authority the evidence submitted does not satisfactorily ensure that an unacceptable degree of noise or dust generated by the quarrying activity will not ensue and therefore future residents would be likely to suffer poor environmental amenity due to excessive noise disturbance and dust arising from existing quarry nearby.

Furthermore the it has also not been demonstratred by the indicative scheme that networks of natural habitats will be protected from development, and where possible, strengthened by or integrated within it, or that the proposal proposals can provide adequate opportunities for building- in beneficial biodiversity features.

For these reasons, the site is not suitable to be released for housing as it would be an environmentally unsustainable development. Accordingly, it is considered that insufficient exceptional circumstances which justify over- riding the normal planning policies have been demonstrated. The proposed development would conflict with the provisions, of Planning Policy Statement 1, Paragraph 69 of Planning Policy Statement 3, Planning Policy 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, Planning Policy Statement 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation; Strategy Policies 1 and 2 and Policies CT/1, 2 and 7, EV/1 (xiii) and EV39 in that of the adopted Borough of Charnwood Local Plan.

2. The proposal is detrimental to highway safety for the following reasons:

• It has not been demonstrated that the existing highway network can satisfactorily accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed development. The proposed development if approved would consequently lead to danger for road users and not be in the best interests of highway safety. • The existing junction of Halstead Road with Swithland Lane has substandard visibility. The proposal, if permitted would consequently result in an unacceptable form of development and could lead to dangers for road users.

The development is therefore contrary to saved Policy TR/6 of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan in that the impact of traffic generated by the proposal would result in an unsafe and unsatisfactory operation of the highway system.

73

This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Licence No: 100023558 This copy has been produced specifically for Council purposes only. No further copies may be made.

Application No: P/12/0022/2 Location: Land off Halstead Road, Mountsorrel, Leicestershire Scale: 1:5000

Dr

a

i n

n

i

a

r

D

LANE BOND

k Trac

Pond Well

HAL STEAD ROAD Pond

OAD AD R STE

HAL

D

A

O

R

T

R

O F

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

L H

O W

W A Y

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

O R

N A

L W S R W A O I Y T A D H D U L

A N

N S

D T E

L R A

N Pond R E O

A

D

S IER OS THE

K

E

N

I

L

W

R

O O

R S

T S

H L

Y C N

L B

O A A

V S R

E E N N A U R E D

W

A

Y

74