Oadby and Wigston Core Strategy and Town Centre Area Action Plans

CABINET – 13 JANUARY 2009

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK CONSULTATION:

OADBY AND WIGSTON CORE STRATEGY AND TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLANS

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

PART A

Purpose of the Report

1. To seek the approval of the Cabinet for responses to Local Development Framework (LDF) consultation documents issued by Oadby and Wigston Borough Council.

Recommendation

2. It is recommended that :

(a) the comments set out in Appendices 1, 2 and 3 to the report be submitted to Oadby and Wigston Borough Council as the views of the County Council on the Oadby and Wigston LDF Core Strategy and Oadby and Wigston Town Centre Action Plans;

(b) the omission of any reference in the Core Strategy as to how the proposed Pennbury Eco-town would help meet, or conflict with, the strategic objectives and policies in the Core Strategy be highlighted as an area of concern to the Borough Council; and

(c) the Borough Council be particularly urged to reconsider its proposals in the Oadby Town Centre Area Action Plan so that a firm commitment be made to providing land for a dedicated place of worship at Sandhurst Street, Oadby, that proper account be taken of the plans and aspirations of the Oadby and Wigston Muslim Association which is acquiring property in this area for community and religious purposes, and to take further account of the need in Oadby for additional places of worship for other faith groups.

1 Reasons for Recommendation

3. To ensure that the County Council makes an appropriate input at this key stage in the LDF process, so that issues of importance for the County Council are clearly expressed and influence the shape and content of the LDF.

Timetable for Decisions (including Scrutiny)

4. The consultation closing date for consultation is 23 January 2009.

Policy Framework and Previous Decisions

5. The County Council may object to, or support planning proposals: • where they are inconsistent with, or help to implement, the provisions of strategic planning policies; • where they impinge upon the County Council's ability to implement any service it provides, or are particularly helpful in supporting these services; • where they affect (positively or negatively) its role as land and property owner. Regional Context

6. The Proposed Changes to the Regional Plan, published by the Secretary of State in July 2008, set out the quantity, phasing and broad locations of housing growth with a continuing emphasis on urban concentration. The Plan also contains policies on the environment, transport, infrastructure, economic development, agriculture, energy, minerals and waste. The LDFs are required to be in conformity with the Regional Plan.

7. On 14 November 2008 the Cabinet agreed to submit comments to the East Midlands Regional Assembly questioning the need for an imminent review of the Regional Plan housing figures to take account of new population projections and associated national advice on housing requirements. Current housing market conditions and changes to migration patterns may mean that the latest projections and advice overestimate housing requirements and if built into regional planning policy could lead to an unnecessary release of greenfield land.

Oadby and Wigston LDF Core Strategy

8. The Borough Council consulted previously on Issues and Options in 2005, and Supplemental Issues and Options in August 2007, when officer comments were submitted.

9. The next stage will be in May and June 2009, when the Submission draft will be available for consultation prior to submission to the Secretary of State. An examination will then test the soundness of the document, and the inspector’s report will be “binding” on the Borough Council.

2 Oadby and Wigston Town Centre Area Action Plans (Preferred Options Addendum Report)

10. Consultation on the two Plans has proceeded in parallel. The Preferred Options Addendum Reports build on previous Issues and Options and Preferred Options consultations and additional research undertaken. The Addendum Reports supplement and amend the Preferred Options Reports which were consulted on in November 2007 and to which officer responses were submitted.

11. Responses to these consultations will be considered and final pre-submission consultations will be carried out later in 2009. This will be followed by Submission, Examination and Adoption aligned with the progression of the Core Strategy.

Resource Implications

12. Resource implications cannot be quantified at this stage and any significant implications would be subject to a further report.

Circulation Under the Local Issues Alert Procedure

13. County Councillors representing Electoral Divisions in Oadby and Wigston:

Mr. G. A. Boulter CC, Mr. M. H. Charlesworth CC, Mr. D. A. Gamble CC, Mr. M. Griffiths CC, Mr. A. P. Natzel CC,

Officers to Contact

Tom Purnell 0116 305 7019 [email protected]

Andrew Simmonds 0116 305 7027 [email protected]

3 PART B

Oadby and Wigston LDF Core Strategy

14. The LDF will be a key mechanism for delivering the spatial aspirations of the Leicestershire Sustainable Community Strategy and the Oadby and Wigston Community Plan that involve the development or use of land and buildings. The Oadby and Wigston Community Strategy is currently being reviewed, and will reflect and add a local focus to the Leicestershire Sustainable Community Strategy.

15. The Oadby and Wigston LDF Core Strategy sets out a vision for the borough, together with a strategy for delivering it to 2026. The document covers the broad location of development and includes strategic policies for housing, business, retail, transport and development control. Key proposals include: • Development will be focussed on the three town centres of Oadby, Wigston and South Wigston. Development at Kilby Bridge will be managed through designation of a ‘village envelope’; • Masterplans will be developed for the three town centres to sustain and promote vitality and economic prosperity; • Provision will be made to enhance the sustainable transport system, with development and services located to reduce the need to travel; • Green Wedges at Thurnby/Leicester/Oadby and Oadby/Leicester/Wigston, will be safeguarded and development restricted to that which will not damage their character; • Policies set out criteria to protect and enhance biodiversity, geological conservation, local landscape and the wider environment and preserve and enhance archaeological sites, listed building and other cultural assets; • Future developments will be required to meet national standards on energy efficiency, and promote sustainable construction and design. Renewable energy installation will be permitted where appropriate; • The Borough will deliver 2,250 homes from 2001 to 2026, consistent with the requirement in the Proposed Changes to the Regional Plan .Three broad development locations or ‘areas of search’ are identified should greenfield land be required to fulfil this level of provision; to the south-east of Wigston, to the south of Oadby; and to the north-east of Oadby. For developments of 10 or more homes 30% will be affordable. One Gypsy and Traveller pitch will be delivered in line with Regional Plan requirements; • The Borough will provide an additional 5,800 sq m of office floor space and 1.3 ha of industrial and warehousing between 2007 and 2026; • Leisure and tourism will be encouraged along the Grand Union Canal; • The local strategic partnership will coordinate proposals for community facilities and places of worship; • Seven Strategic Development Control Policies are also set out in the document; • An addendum to the Core Strategy sets out how the Pennbury Ecotown proposal will be considered through future stages of the LDF process. No account is taken of the proposal in the draft Core Strategy consultation paper.

4 Key Comments

16. Key comments are set out below, and are included in full in Appendix 1:

Chapter 3: Achieving Sustainable Development

a) In principle, the preferred approach is supported. The transport study being undertaken by the Borough Council (jointly with Harborough District Council) is welcomed and supported. The outcomes of that study will inform the County Council’s view of the preferred location for future greenfield housing provision within Oadby and Wigston.

Chapter 5: Transport and Accessibility

Core Strategy Policy 4

b) The County Council seeks the continued protection of the Eastern District Distributor Road in Oadby and Wigston's LDF. It would impact on a number of key strategic areas of the LDF and should not be abandoned unless and until the County Council expresses a formal view as Highways Authority.

Chapter 6: Greenfield Land, Natural Environment and Biodiversity

c) There is an inconsistent approach to Green Infrastructure (GI) in the Core Strategy. This would best be rectified by the inclusion of an over-arching GI Policy.

Chapter 8: Balanced Housing Markets

Core Strategy Policy 16: Meeting the Housing Needs of the Borough

d) The approach to housing provision is supported. The 2,250 dwellings proposed to be provided between 2001 and 2026 equates to 90 per year, which is consistent with the draft Regional Plan.

e) The proposal to prioritise brownfield sites is also supported and is consistent with the strategy of urban concentration and consolidation in the draft Regional Plan. It is noted that more detailed proposals for greenfield land provision will emerge through future drafts of the Core Strategy and an allocations Development Plan Document and that this will be informed by the study of transport and highways implications.

Chapter 9: Employment Provision

Core Strategy Policy 20

f) A policy focus on allowing existing employment areas to expand might appear sound in principle and in general is welcomed. However, in practice there are sites where in transportation terms this would not be acceptable. For example, Magna Road in South Wigston is poorly laid out with a sub-standard access to the highway network. The policy needs to be amended to include a condition, such that existing areas can only be expanded where suitable site

5 access is available or can be provided and there will be no adverse transport impacts or they can be suitably mitigated.

Addendum – Pennbury Eco-town

g) Given the lack of clarity from central Government regarding the relationship between the Regional Plan and LDF processes and the Government’s Ecotown initiative the Borough Council’s inclusion of an Addendum setting out how the Ecotown might be considered in future drafts of the Core Strategy is welcomed in principle. The Addendum does not however articulate how any future development of the Pennbury proposal would be consistent, or inconsistent, with the Core Strategy’s own strategic objectives and policies. In particular reference should be made to how any Ecotown would contribute to strategic objectives SO2 (including to ‘concentrate new development on previously developed land and in Oadby, Wigston and South Wigston Town Centres’), SO7 (‘support the role of Oadby, Wigston and South Wigston Town Centres by developing strategies for regeneration, investment and growth’) and Core Strategy Policy 16 ('Meeting the Housing Needs of the Borough'). The lack of reference to how the emerging Pennbury proposal meets the Core Strategy objectives is a major omission given the scale and significance of the proposal.

Oadby Town Centre Area Action Plan

17. The Preferred Options Addendum report builds on the previous consultation document. The Preferred Options report identified the character areas that make up Oadby town centre; major new retail and leisure development, public realm, pedestrian access and parking improvements.

18. A number of transport schemes were suggested to reduce traffic along The Parade, improve public transport links and pedestrian/cycle access.

19. The Preferred Options sought consolidation of and focussed growth within the town centre core as defined by a new tighter town centre boundary that excludes easterly parts of the town.

20. In addition, three key intervention areas were identified to shape Oadby Town Centre; East Street Car Park; Sandhurst Street, The Precinct and Cheshunt Avenue; and Harborough Road Gateway and The Parade. The disused Oadby Library site lies within the Sandhurst Street redevelopment area. The new Oadby library in The Parade is open and Cabinet has agreed to sell the old Library to the Oadby and Wigston Muslim Association on terms to be agreed.

21. Changes set out in the Addendum report relate to: • Place of Worship: due to the level of objection to the previous East Street car park proposal which included a dedicated site set aside for a place of worship, the Area Action Plan now proposes that a place of worship could be provided on a site to be allocated for community uses as part of the proposed Sandhurst Street Retail Development; • Car Parking: the introduction of single deck car parking facilities at East Street and Sandhurst Street will minimise impact on neighbouring properties;

6 • Removal of Shops: Some demolition is deemed necessary to enable redevelopment. This will be phased to minimise disruption; • Allocation of the Invicta Site: Proposed for retail-led, mixed-use development. A planning application from a known supermarket operator is expected; • Junction re-alignment at Leicester Road/The Parade: proposals amended to include only minor alteration to the road junction to improve pedestrian crossing. 22. The revised proposals for Places of Worship in Oadby town centre raise serious concerns:

• The previous commitment to allocating a dedicated site for a place of worship at East Street has been amended to become a much less specific proposal to allocate land for ‘community use’ as part of the Sandhurst Street Retail Development, with it being stated that this ‘could include place of worship, nursery or other community facility’. This is a significant watering down of the previous proposal to provide land for a place of worship and fails adequately to carry forward the conclusion of the Faith Study that there is demand for at least one additional place of worship in Oadby;

• The proposed allocations of land for the Sandhurst Street retail development, including the aforementioned site for community use (which lies in the south-western quadrant of the proposed development), does not take account of the existence (in the north-eastern quadrant of the site) of the former Oadby Library which is being sold by the County Council to the Oadby and Wigston Muslim Association for community and religious purposes on the grounds that it will help to improve the social well-being of the area;

• The Faith Study concluded that there is demand for at least one additional place of worship in Oadby. Further consideration should be given to proposing an additional allocation to allow provision to be made for other faith groups.

23. It is recommended that the Borough Council be urged to reconsider its proposals so that a firm commitment be made to providing land for a dedicated place of worship at Sandhurst Street, that proper account be taken of the plans and aspirations of the Oadby and Wigston Muslim Association which is acquiring property in this area for community and religious purposes, and to take further account of the need in Oadby for additional places of worship for other faith groups.

24. Further detailed comments of the County Council are set out in full in Appendix 2.

Wigston Town Centre Area Action Plan

25. The Preferred Options Addendum report builds on the previous consultation document. The Preferred Options report identified town centre character

7 areas, significant new retail and office development, public realm, pedestrian access and parking improvements.

26. Transport schemes were suggested to improve west / east links reducing traffic on Leicester Road, consolidate a number of small car parks and the create a new transport interchange as well as pedestrian and cycle route improvements.

27. The document planned to re-focus the town centre into a well designed core containing new retail and leisure floorspace. The new boundary excludes southerly parts of the town.

28. The Masterplan also identified three key intervention areas in the town: Junction Road, The Library Area and Paddock Street.

29. Changes set out in the Addendum report relate to: • Car Parking: an additional storey to be added to the Junction Road multi- storey, additional parking to the south between Paddock Street and Bell Street and disabled parking in convenient locations; • Proximity of new build to Pentecostal Church, Frederick Street: A layby area will be provided and pavements will be widened outside the church; • New Road Layout: the town centre road layout will be reconfigured to aid distribution of through traffic from Aylestone Lane to Bull Head Street; • Bus Route Alteration reducing accessibility: existing bus routes will not be altered with the transport interchange being an additional stop; • Need for additional retail provision: some demolition is necessary for redevelopment, this will be phased to minimise disruption. 30. Proposed comments of the County Council are set out in full in Appendix 3.

Equal Opportunities Implications

31. Through their policies and land allocations, local development frameworks have significant implications for disadvantaged people living in Leicestershire. By seeking to ensure that the strategic policy of urban concentration is followed by the LDFs and that an appropriate provision of affordable homes is made, the County Council can, through its representations, contribute to the needs of disadvantaged groups. This will especially be the case in more detailed documents, such as land allocation development plan documents and town centre action plans.

Background Papers

Proposed Changes to the East Midlands Regional Plan - July 2008

Oadby and Wigston Local Development Framework 2006-2026 Planning for our Future Core Strategy Further Consultation Paper – November 2008

Oadby Town Centre Area Action Plan Preferred Options Report – November 2007

Oadby Town Centre Area Action Plan Preferred Options Addendum Report – November 2008

8 Wigston Town Centre Area Action Plan Preferred Options Report – November 2007

Wigston Town Centre Area Action Plan Preferred Options Addendum Report – November 2008

Reports to the Cabinet on the following issues and dates:

Regional Plan Partial Review – 14 November 2008

Appendices

Appendix 1: Oadby and Wigston Local Development Framework Core Strategy – Leicestershire County Council Response

Appendix 2: Oadby Town Centre Area Action Plan – Leicestershire County Council Response

Appendix 3: Wigston Town Centre Area Action Plan – Leicestershire County Council Response

9 APPENDIX 1

OADBY AND WIGSTON LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK CORE STRATEGY

LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL RESPONSE

KEY COMMENTS

Chapter 3: Achieving Sustainable Development

In principle, the preferred approach is supported. The transport study being undertaken by the Borough Council (jointly with Harborough District Council) is welcomed and supported. The outcomes of that study will inform the County Council’s view of the preferred location for the urban fringe development.

Chapter 5: Transport and Accessibility Core Strategy Policy 4 The County Council seeks the continued protection of the Eastern District Distributor Road in Oadby and Wigston's LDF. It would impact on a number of key strategic areas of the LDF and should not be abandoned unless and until the County Council expresses a formal view as Highways Authority. Chapter 6: Greenfield Land, Natural Environment and Biodiversity There is an inconsistent approach to Green Infrastructure (GI) in the Core Strategy. This would best be rectified by the inclusion of an over-arching GI Policy. Chapter 8: Balanced Housing Markets

Core Strategy Policy 16: Meeting the Housing Needs of the Borough

The approach to housing provision is supported. The 2,250 dwellings proposed to be provided between 2001 and 2026 equates to 90 per year, which is consistent with the draft Regional Plan.

The proposal to prioritise brownfield sites is also supported and is consistent with the strategy of urban concentration and consolidation in the draft Regional Plan. It is noted that more detailed proposals for greenfield land provision will emerge through future drafts of the Core Strategy and an allocations Development Plan Document and that this will be informed by the study of transport and highways implications.

Chapter 9: Employment Provision

Core Strategy Policy 20 A policy focus on allowing existing employment areas to expand might appear sound in principle and in general is welcomed. However, in practice there are sites where in transportation terms this would not be acceptable. For example, Magna Road in South Wigston is poorly laid out with a sub-standard access to the highway network. The policy needs to be amended to include a condition, such that existing areas can only be expanded where suitable site access is available or can be provided and there will be no adverse transport impacts or they can be suitably mitigated.

10 Addendum – Pennbury Eco-town

Given the lack of clarity from central Government regarding the relationship between the Regional Plan and LDF processes and the Government’s Ecotown initiative the Borough Council’s inclusion of an Addendum setting out how the Ecotown might be considered in future drafts of the Core Strategy is welcomed in principle. The Addendum does not however articulate how any future development of the Pennbury proposal would be consistent, or inconsistent, with the Core Strategy’s own strategic objectives and policies. In particular reference should be made to how any Ecotown would contribute to strategic objectives SO2 (including to ‘concentrate new development on previously developed land and in Oadby, Wigston and South Wigston Town Centres’), SO7 (‘support the role of Oadby, Wigston and South Wigston Town Centres by developing strategies for regeneration, investment and growth’) and Core Strategy Policy 16 ('Meeting the Housing Needs of the Borough'). The lack of reference to how the emerging Pennbury proposal meets the Core Strategy objectives is a major omission given the scale and significance of the proposal.

DETAILED COMMENTS

The Policies are written at strategic level which does not give spatial or specific guidance for residents, developers or other agencies.

Chapter 2: Spatial Vision, Key Issues, Strategic Issues, Retail Hierarchy and Key Diagram

Strategic Objective 6

It is unclear what is meant by ‘affordable’ highway network. Strategic Objective 10 This would be better as part of a Green Infrastructure Policy. Strategic Objective 11 The components of this policy should include a reference to it being part of an over- arching GI Policy.

Chapter 4: Town Centres and Regeneration Paragraph 4.18 The consultation responses that "Green Infrastructure should be incorporated as an important consideration in regeneration schemes" should be included here. Core Strategy Policy 2 The Policy should include a reference to GI, to cover both new and existing development.

11 Chapter 5: Transport and Accessibility

Paragraph 5.9

This should signpost Policy 21 with regard to ‘pooled’ funding.

Paragraph 5.10

Increasingly, residential travel plans are being sought. The Core Strategy should refer to the need for both residential and non-residential travel plans. Alternatives and Reasons for Rejection The meaning of this is unclear. The wording appears to imply that the alternatives of reducing congestion and road casualties, etc. have been rejected. The Core Strategy should make clear reference to and support the Leicestershire Local Transport Plan 2006-2011, which sets out the Highway Authority’s objectives. Core Strategy Policy 4 This policy is awkwardly worded. It should refer to documents by title and should include the Local Transport Plan. Core Strategy Policy 5 The wording of the final paragraph is too weak and should be strengthened to require developers to provide residential and non-residential travel plans. It should refer to access to sustainable modes of transport and set out mechanisms for delivery and monitoring of effectiveness.

Chapter 6: Greenfield Land, Natural Environment and Biodiversity Paragraph 6.8 There should be reference to the Stepping Stones publications " Creating a Green and Prosperous Future: A Green Infrastructure Delivery Plan for the Stepping Stones Project " and its associated action plan and the " Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Landscape and Woodland Strategy ". There should also be reference to the IT Power study “ Planning for Climate Change May 2008 ” which was jointly commissioned by the Borough Council. Paragraph 6.9 Being a "small predominately urban Borough", there should be reference to the inter- relationship with the landscape of neighbouring authorities and the GI links between them. Paragraph 6.10 The wording on boundary review(s) is confusing.

Paragraph 6.11 This should precede para 6.10, since it justifies 6.10. In addition it should be noted that the Green Wedge Management Strategy was jointly prepared by Stepping Stones and the Borough Council.

12 Core Strategy Policy 6 The key concepts of GI are connectivity and multifunctionality. With the recognition in this document of GI and its importance in terms of strategic connectivity of green space, it should also be acknowledged that green wedges can already provide many of the functions of GI and that the two should be integrated.

It should be recognised that adjustments to green wedge boundaries might affect their functionality. Unlike Green Belt the advantage of green wedges is that they provide fingers of green that can extend right into the urban area benefiting those communities that otherwise would have limited access to large areas of green space. Therefore, the loss of any areas of green wedge is not easily mitigated against for people living closest to the central urban area. Core Strategy Policy 7 It is assumed that built development includes roads, but this is not clear.

Core Strategy Policy 8

In comparison with the objectives the wording of the policy appears rather weak. In transportation terms, there is a concern that inappropriate development in the countryside will perpetuate unsustainable patterns of travel. The policy wording should be strengthened to reflect the objective of providing development that is essential to the needs of the rural economy. Core Strategy Policy 9 GI is mentioned but only within the context of bio-diversity, suggesting an inconsistent approach towards GI. Wildlife Sites should also be included in this policy.

Core Strategy Policy 11

Despite the title of the policy ‘Renewable Energy Use and Increasing Energy Efficiency’, there is no statement on energy efficiency in the policy. The Strategic Development Control Policies refer to high standards of water and energy efficiency but do not define what is meant or set standards to be achieved.

Chapter 7: Built Environment, Culture & Heritage

This chapter should include reference to the County Council policy document, ‘Highways, transportation and development’ (Htd). One of the key objectives of Htd is the delivery of quality developments and it is important that developers understand that there is a link between it and wider planning policies. Htd should therefore be listed in the core strategy under other ‘strategies and policy considerations’. Core Strategy Policy 13 The meaning of 'reducing waste generation resource' should be explained. Core Strategy Policy 14 The Grand Union Canal is a Conservation Area and is therefore covered by Policy 15.

13 Chapter 8: Balanced Housing Markets

Paragraph 8.10

This is inconsistent with paragraph 3.13, which states that actual development locations will be narrowed down further in the draft Submission Core Strategy. Core Strategy Policy 16 The expectation that new areas of housing will contain provision for dealing with the waste arising within them (industrial/commercial and residential waste) should be reflected in the Core Strategy. This would accord with PPS 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management which encourages communities to take more responsibility for their own waste, ensure that new development makes sufficient provision for waste management and promotes designs and layouts that secure the integration of waste management facilities without adverse impact on the street scene or the local landscape. The Regional Waste Strategy for the East Midlands states that consideration should be given to ‘sustainable growth parks’ which can lead to a coordinated approach to waste management preferably in conjunction with other forms of development.

Core Strategy Policy 19

This should include reference to safe and appropriate access to the highway network.

Chapter 9: Employment Provision and Fostering Enterprise

Core Strategy Policy 20

The intention to provide new employment areas is supported but such employment sites should not preclude the development of waste management sites within them.

Chapter 10: Community Facilities, Leisure and Recreation

Reasons for Preferred Options Choice

Should include reference to provision of facilities where they help to reduce the need to travel. Paragraph 10.11 The reference to the Open Space Assessment would be better viewed within an over-arching GI Policy, with an emphasis on multi-functional GI. Paragraph 10.12, Figure 4 It is not clear where or what the justification of these proposed standards is.

Core Strategy Policy 21

The inclusion of this Policy is welcomed in principle.

However, it may not be strong enough in terms of securing ‘pooled contributions’ to deliver area wide transport measures, and provide a linkage between transport infrastructure provision and development delivery.

14 It needs to be robust, clear and comprehensive, particularly in relation to major development proposals and address major developer contribution requirements through, for example, master planning, frontloading, pre application enquiries and/or negotiations.

It is also important that a consistent approach to developer contributions is provided in the policy. This would mitigate the impacts of development on local infrastructure, services and facilities and the environment, in accordance with national objectives for delivering sustainable development and communities.

It should also be consistent with the County Council’s developer contributions policy guidelines, the Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire (SRDCL), and reflect the proposed changes to developer contributions through the Planning Bill and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) enacted on 26th November 2008 and the infrastructure and service requirements which will be assessed through the development plan process.

The Leicester and Leicestershire Infrastructure Plan currently in preparation will form an important part of the evidence base for such a policy.

The policy should also include reference to contributions towards GI. Core Strategy Policy 22 Should link into an overall GI Policy Page 83, SO8 Missing 'only'. Core Strategy Policy 23 The Grand Union Canal is an operating waterway and therefore does not need restoring; ‘revitalising’ may be more appropriate.

Chapter 11: Implementation and Delivery

Figure 5: Strategic Objectives 6 & 8

Leicestershire County Council should also be listed in the ‘Who’ column as the highway and transportation authority, and perhaps also bus companies.

Chapter 12: Strategic Development Control Policies

The Core Strategy Development Control Policies are very confusingly given policy numbers which already occur elsewhere in the document.

Core Strategy Policy 5

Whilst the policy is broadly welcomed, as presently worded it only deals with situations where impacts can be mitigated. The policy does not deal with circumstances where adverse impacts (e.g. on congestion, road safety and air quality) cannot be mitigated. The policy should be amended to say that development will not be permitted where its adverse consequences cannot be mitigated.

15 APPENDIX 2

OADBY AND WIGSTON LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK CORE STRATEGY

OADBY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN

Key Comments

Places of Worship

The revised proposals for Places of Worship in Oadby town centre raise serious concerns;

• The proposed allocations of land for the Sandhurst Street retail development, including the aforementioned site for community use (which lies in the south- western quadrant of the proposed development), does not take account of the existence (in the north-eastern quadrant of the site) of the former Oadby Library which is being sold by the County Council to the Oadby and Wigston Muslim Association for community and religious purposes on the grounds that it will help to improve the social well-being of the area;

It is recommended that the Borough Council be urged to reconsider its proposals so that a firm commitment be made to providing land for a dedicated place of worship at Sandhurst Street, that proper account be taken of the plans and aspirations of the Oadby and Wigston Muslim Association which is acquiring property in this area for community and religious purposes, and to take further account of the need in Oadby for additional places of worship for other faith groups.

Detailed Comments

Developer Contributions

The Area Action Plan (AAP) should be consistent with and cross refer to the proposed Core Strategy Policy 21 on developer contributions and the infrastructure and service requirements which will be assessed through the development plan process.

16 Developer contributions policies in the AAP need to give clear, comprehensive and robust advice and reference to the likely measures for a range of service and infrastructure provision including, for example, transportation and public realm measures to ensure the town centre improvements are realised. Proper consideration also needs to be given to developer contributions secured from the potential development sites. There should be co-ordination and evidence of this in the AAP.

Policies should be consistent with the County Council’s Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire (SRDCL), which is to be updated in 2009, and reflect the changes to developer contributions through the Planning Bill and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

The Leicester and Leicestershire Infrastructure Plan currently in preparation will form an important part of the evidence base for such policies.

Responses to Objections & Masterplan Alterations

Car Parking

Account should be taken of potential residential / commercial builds and how the additional car parking space would be allocated, given the proximity to the centre of Oadby.

Removal of shops

The town centre needs some improvement to the existing retail space but given the relatively low vacancy rate and that retailing has been severely affected by the recession there may be insufficient vacant capacity.

Junction Re-alignment at Leicester Road / The Parade

The County Council’s previous comment with regard to the proposed improvement of the A6/The Parade junction has been addressed. However, the general comment about it being unlikely that the proposals in the plan would attract LTP funding remains.

Consideration should be given to the small ‘garden area’ alongside the ‘Instore’ shop. This could provide a solution to the gateway signage for the centre.

17 APPENDIX 3

OADBY AND WIGSTON LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK CORE STRATEGY

WIGSTON TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN

Detailed Comments

Developer Contributions

Developer contributions policies in the AAP need to give clear, comprehensive and robust advice and reference to the likely measures for a range of service and infrastructure provision including, for example, transportation and public realm measures to ensure the town centre improvements are realised. Proper consideration also needs to be given to developer contributions secured from the potential development sites. There should be co-ordination and evidence of this in the AAP.

The Leicester and Leicestershire Infrastructure Plan currently in preparation will form an important part of the evidence base for such policies.

Responses to Objections & Masterplan Alterations

New road layout

The addendum report has mainly addressed the County Council’s previous comments. There remain concerns about a conflict of objectives in the Frederick Street proposals in that increasing traffic along it would not be conducive with the promotion of pedestrian priority. However, it is understood that the Borough Council is seeking to undertake a study of the Fredrick Street/Leicester Road junction. This is welcomed, and the County Council is happy to provide technical guidance, but the study should be extended to include examination of the impacts of increasing traffic along Fredrick Street including the traffic signals at the junction with Bull Head Street.

The traffic study should also consider the width of road required, given that the traffic will be flowing past the church one way towards Bull Head Street. If there is only space for a single lane, the effect this would have on traffic flow or traffic queues should be assessed.

18 It would also be necessary to see the proposed layout for Junction Road to assess the impact on natural sunlight, given that there is residential housing facing the commercial development on both Burgress Street & Junction Road.

In reference to reducing traffic on Leicester Road, there is potential for conflict between the measures required to discourage general traffic from using this route versus maintaining its purpose as a bus route. The County Council is happy to work with the borough council to explore potential options.

It is not clear whether the revised plan still requires the removal of the retail unit on the corner of Leicester Road / Aylestone Road. If removal is required the possible cost of CPO should be considered against the benefits for this road alignment.