Planning Committee Report Applicant: the Owners of Market

Planning Committee Report Applicant: The Owners of Market Harborough Land Application Ref: 15/02006/OUT Location: Land adjacent to Overstone House, Kettering Road, Market Harborough Proposal: Erection of up to 600 residential dwellings, a primary school, a local centre comprising A1, A2, A3 and D1, provision of public open space and play areas, new roundabout access off Kettering Road, new vehicular link from Overstone House, construction of footways and cycleways, regrading of the site by means of 'cut and fill' and construction of structures to accommodate sustainable urban drainage systems (access to be determined). Application Validated: 22/12/15 Target Date: 22/3/16 (extension of time agreed) Consultation Expiry Date: 05/04/18 Site Visit Date: 12/01/16 Case Officer: Naomi Rose

Recommendation

APPROVED:

That, taking into account the Environmental Statement and its addendum which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended), application 15/02006/OUT is APPROVED for the reasons set out in the report and below subject to:- (i) The proposed conditions set out at section 8 of the report and (ii) The entering into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (and S38/S278 of the Highways Act 1980), or similar arrangement, to provide for the obligations set out in Appendix B of the report

Whilst the proposals cause some landscape harm and involve countryside development, in conflict with Core Strategy policy CS17, that harm is generally identified as moderate, other than in some views where it is major. The harm does not significantly and demonstrably outweigh proposal benefits including delivery of housing and affordable housing. Other social, economic and environmental interests are not harmed and Core Strategy policy CS2, whilst not up to date, nevertheless allows for development outside limits to development when there is not a 5 year housing land supply. The proposal is therefore in accordance with policies CS2, CS5, CS8 and CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy and The Framework.

1. Site & Surroundings

1.1 The site is located to the south-eastern edge of Market Harborough settlement. It is positioned to the south-west of the A6, on the south side of the Kettering Road, close to the junction with the A6. The site is to the north side of the mainline railway line. The site area is 35.7 hectares. The site slopes from the north-west corner to the south-eastern corner AOD 125 – 90 AOD. There is an access under the railway line

through a short tunnel to Braybrooke Road. The site abuts Kettering Borough Council.

1.2 The site consists of three fields. The north-western field is the smallest piece of land, currently down to grazing by sheep. This field slopes steeply upwards from the Kettering Road, it is known locally as The Knoll (Clack Hill) and halfway across to the south it then starts to slope downwards. Along the western boundary of the field are overhead power lines. The site has evidence of ridge and furrow. It is defined by hedgerow to all boundaries.

1.3 The south western field slopes downward to the railway line; however the south- western corner adjacent to the Glebe Road open space is higher than the south- eastern corner. There is a line of Oak trees running north-south across the field and the overhead power lines continue south across the site. There is close boarded fencing, a wire fence and scrubby vegetation along the boundary with the Glebe Road development. To the boundary with properties on The Heights and Overstone House are mature trees, hedgerow and low wire and timber fencing. To the railway line is a high timber post and wire fence.

Site location plan

1.4 The largest field is to the east and down to arable crop. The field slopes down from the Kettering Road to the railway line. The field is bounded by hedgerow to the northern, western and eastern boundaries. To the south the field is bounded by a high concrete post and wire fence,

1.5 The site is bounded by the railway line (London to Market Harborough) to the south, Braybrooke Road runs parallel with the railway line to the south side of the line. The railway line runs along the entire length of the southern boundary of the application site. After the fencing along the application site boundary there is a ditch and

vegetation strip to the railway line. The railway line is on an embankment (higher ground) at the south-east corner of the site. The railway line then gradually gets lower in relation to the application site, until at the south-western corner of the site it is in an embankment (lower ground) and further away from the application site.

1.6 Agricultural fields extend to the east (Kettering Borough Council). To the west is the Overstone House and Glebe Road development including the public open space.

1.7 To the north is Kettering Road and Clack Hill development beyond, Overstone House, Shrewsberry Avenue and The Heights. From the Kettering Road along the northern boundary of the application site, there is a wide verge (no footpath). At the eastern end the verge slopes steeply downward to the boundary hedgerow, then the verge levels off and at the western corner, the verge slightly rises up to the hedgerow.

1.8 The site lies outside of the Limits of Development as identified on the 2001 Proposal map, as such the site is designated open countryside. The site has no national and local designations. No rights of way cross the site; however, there is a Bridleway A71 to the north of the site.

View from the Kettering Road of the Knoll, overhead lines and Oak trees.

View from the Kettering Road of the site and raised section railway line

2. Site History

2.1 The Site has the following planning history.

14/00661/FUL Creation of a surface water attenuation pond in relation to adjacent residential development 14/00623/FUL) Approved 04/07/14

3. The Application Submission a) Summary of Proposals

3.1 The proposal seeks outline planning with all matters reserved (namely layout, scale, appearance and landscaping) except for access which is submitted for full approval. The proposal 35.8ha site comprises of the following elements. • the erection of up to 600 dwellings, including a mix of types and sizes and a proportion of affordable housing. • a primary school (D1 use) up to 2ha. • a local centre comprising of A1 (shops), A2 (Financial and Professional Services), A3 (Restaurants and Café), and D1 (Nursery, Community centre and medical centre). • New roundabout access off Kettering Road, including a new vehicular link from Overstone House, construction of footways and cycle-ways. • construction of structures to accommodate sustainable urban drainage system. • Re-grading the site by means of cut and fill. • Green Infrastructure including public open space, and play provision of 2 x Local Equipped Area of Play (LEAP) and 1 x Neighbourhood equipped play area (NEAP) 11.45ha.

Illustrative composite Masterplan

3.2 Access is proposed off Kettering Road, with the formation of a roundabout on the Kettering Road. A new roundabout is proposed on the A6. There is also access from the application site into the Overstone House from the southern boundary and the eastern boundary

3.3 There is a line of oak trees that cross the site in a north-south direction these are to be retained.

3.4 Surface water drainage for the site includes multiple attenuation ponds across the site to control surface water drainage; these areas also create opportunities for amenity and parkland spaces forming leisure routes. Foul water drainage is to be pumped up to Kettering Road, by pumping stations.

3.5 There are two LEAP’s and one NEAP proposed within the application site, two on the southern edge, next to the pedestrian link under the railway line, the other adjacent to the retained Oak trees; and one centrally on the site adjacent to the existing attenuation pond.

3.6 The proposed two form entry school is on land up-to 2 hectares. The school is close to the Kettering Road. The Electricity line is to be buried within a 4metres easement.

3.7 There are proposed to be four character areas, Knoll Court, Jordan, Davenport Way and Nethercote Park. Knoll Court is the principle gateway to the site and will draw on

the local Market Harborough town centre architectural characteristics. Jordan is next to the local centre in a central location, therefore it will have a tighter grain drawing on the town centre character, Davenport Way will have a more urban identify and Nethercote Park relates to the countryside therefore will have a more traditional approach.

3.8 There are significant areas of cut and fill across the site. Calculations were completed to estimate the potential cut and fill requirements and this confirmed that there would be no need to export or import material to create the proposed landforms. The site sections 116 Rev A and 117 Rev A show that there is cut to build the school and playing field and fill for the top section of the secondary loop road. b) Documents submitted i. Supporting Statements

3.9 The application has been accompanied by the following supporting (revised) statements, some of which are included within the Technical Appendices of the EIA: • Design, access and justification statement revised (Jan. 2018) • Planning Statement revised (Feb. 2018) • Design codes revised (Feb. 2018) • Transport Assessment TA (Dec 2015) and Addendum Technical Note to TA April 2016 • Highways Technical Note (May 2016) • Travel Plan (Dec. 2015) • Assessment of Environmental noise and vibration revised (28 April 2016) • Desk study report - Contamination (Dec 2015) • Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) as revised in Chapter 5 of the ES (May 2017) and Addendum report February 2018. • Arboricultural report revised (May 2017) • Archaeology desk based assessment (March 2015) • Geophysical survey (Dec 2015) • Archaeology Evaluation (30th June 2016) • Flood Risk assessment revised (10th May 2017) • Surface Water drainage Strategy • SuDs maintenance plan (16th February 2017) • Ecology Appraisal revised (1st May 2017) • Great Crested Newts Assessment (1st May 2017) • Badger Assessment (1st May 2017) • Utilities Appraisal (Dec 2015) • Agricultural land classification (Dec 2013) • Market Report (20th October 2017) • Viability Report 2018 ii. Supporting Parameter plans

3.10 A number of revised plans were submitted which although indicative, provide design principles which future reserved matters can be considered against. These plans comprise: • Topographical plan OP1018-D13 • Opportunities and constraints plan 13064 (b) 112 Rev F • Parameters plan 13064 (b) 111 Rev K • Illustrative phasing plan 13064 (B) 123 Rev A • Illustrative Composite masterplan plan 13064 (b) 115 Rev E • Highways plans – Proposed site access roundabout plan 15043-017;

A6/Kettering Road roundabout plan 15043-018; Proposed link road though site plan 15043-019.; and Indicative cycle route provision along Kettering Road) plan 15043/006 Rev B • Preliminary Surface Water Drainage Strategy S82211-SK-007 Rev B • Section plans 13064 (b) 117 Rev A and 13064 (b) 116 Rev A • Existing Vegetation to be retained OP1018-D14 • Tree Plan TP/LOPKRMHL/010 B

iii. Environmental Statement including a non-technical summary. 3.11 The application was submitted without an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The Local Authority were asked to undertake a screening opinion and concluded that an EIA was required for the development based on the complexity of the proposal and likely significant environmental effects. The site is very large and not previously developed. The physical scale in its location and context is likely to result in significant landscape drainage, noise emission and traffic impacts. The Agent then submitted a scoping opinion (March 2016) to determine what should go into the EIA. The Local Authority responded. The application was then held in abeyance whilst the Agent compiled an EIA which took about 1 year. The EIA was submitted by the applicant on 15th May 2017 and consultations took place including being advertised by the applicant by site notice and press notice. An Addendum to the EIA was submitted on14th March 2018.

3.12 The proposal is Environmental Impact Assessment Development under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011. An Environmental Statement (ES) has been produced to examine and evaluate the likely environmental effects of the development as required by Schedule 2 (Urban Development projects of over 5 hectares in size and 150 dwellings) of the Regulations. The ES contains the information necessary to enable a decision to be made for the purpose of assessing the significant environmental effects of the development. The ES includes the following topics: • Ecology • Landscape and visual • Air Quality • Noise and vibration • Highways and transportation • Socio-economics • Archaeology and built heritage. • Geology and soil • Water resources

3.13 For each issue identified the ES sets out the methodology used, including details of the baseline situation and impacts likely to result from the proposed development. All effects direct, indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium, long term, permanent, temporary, positive and negative have been analysed within the ES and measures considered such as to mitigate any identified impacts.

3.14 The non-technical summary document comprises a summary of the findings which the general public and non-technical experts can understand. The Appendices contain all the technical documents to each of the above subject areas. The EIA Regulations do not expressly require that an applicant considers alternatives, although it is widely encouraged at the policy level, both European and domestic, and is a feature of EIA best practice. The site was assessed as part of the Local plan site

selection process, therefore there was no requirement as part of the EIA to look at alternative sites.

3.15 The Addendum (14 March 2018) addressed a number of areas: • Tree and landscape plans were clarified. • Heights of buildings were reduced, this resulted in the LVIA being revised. • A marketing report was produced to provide evidence that there is likely to be a market for the proposed uses, B1 use was omitted as there was little evidence for this use in this location; • Detailed calculations regarding the SuDs, resulting in revised basin sizes, and further analysis of the existing and proposed topography to ensure a workable drainage strategy. • Masterplan was up-dated and re-fined i.e. relocation of NEAP, 45-50m buffer to eastern boundary, TPO Oak trees protected in open space areas, densities; • Opportunities and Constraints plan up-dated; • Parameters plan up-dated; • Detailed work on the Design Codes to ensure that the relationship between development parcels and landscaping would work i.e. tree-lined avenue. • Design & Access Statement and Design Code updated to reflect changes to the layout, building heights, and landscape changes i.e. tree-lined Avenue; • Cross Section plans have been up-dated; • Phasing plan and Topographical plan up-dated; • Accessibility document (Highways technical note)

c) Other Amended Information

3.16 Amended description (May 2017) ‘re-grading of site by means of cut and fill Amended description (March 2018) ‘B1’ omitted from description d) Pre-application Engagement

3.17 Pre-application discussions took place with the Council in September 2015. A number of issues were raised and discussed with the applicant, including the need to submit an EIA with the application. They have also been in discussions with the LCC Highways Authority.

3.18 In addition, the applicants also engaged with the design group OPUN Design Review Panel East Midlands on the advise of the Council. They had three meetings with them between 2013 and 2015. The last meeting was on 12th November 2015, the recommendation of the report are as follows. • Strengthening the vison for the site with careful consideration given to the relationship of the development with Market Harborough and the type of community to be created. • Utilising the extensive site analysis will help to demonstrate the relationship between the views, landscape and layout. • The provision of fewer, but more diverse and well defined character areas that are informed by place; • Strengthening the proposal for the local centre including rationalising the car parking areas and confirming its urban role; • Undertaking additional work on the landscape strategy to provide a hierarchy of open spaces and specify the form, function and character of the spaces.

3.19 A Public consultation exercise (on behalf of the applicant) took place on Thursday 9th June and Friday 10th June 2016 at the Market Harborough Leisure Centre. It was

published in the Harborough Mail on the front page on 9th June 2016 and a 10,000 leaflet drop was organised to local residents and businesses. In the main responses were questions relating to highway impacts and its mitigation, and where interested in family housing/community uses and the site being used by the public.

4. Consultations and Representations

4.1 Consultations with technical consultees and the local community were carried out on the application: firstly at the initial consultation stage and then following the receipt of the EIA and then the Addendum to the EIA .

4.2 A summary of the technical consultee responses received are set out below. Where comments relate to developer contributions, these will be discussed in more detail within the main body of the report. If you wish to view the comments in full, please go to: www.harborough.gov.uk/planning a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees

4.3 Leicestershire County Highways: No objection, subject to conditions relating to completion of the A6/Kettering Road access arrangement, completion of the secondary link road, completion of the site access junction, footway/cycleway on Kettering Road, implementation of highway works where the Kettering Road passes under the railway line, full travel plan, construction traffic management plan

The officer has requested the following off-site contributions. • Public transport - bus passes, bus service between the site and town centre, additional bus service costs, new bus stop infrastructure. • Market Harborough Transport Strategy - payment per dwelling towards the strategy.

See Appendix A for the full Highway Observations and a recap of the initial highways observations in 09.02.16.

4.4 Ecology: No objection, subject to conditions relating to landscape planting in the informal/natural open space and adjacent to the site boundaries is locally native species, 5m buffer zone alongside all retained hedgerows, biodiversity management plan, SuDs designed to maximise benefit to wildlife, light spill onto hedgerows min. to 1lux or lower at edge of habitats, mitigation for protected species in accordance with report recommendation, badger mitigation plan, provision of bat/bird boxes.

4.5 HDC Contaminated Land Officer: No comment on Air Quality assessment. No objection subject to conditions relating to risk based assessment and verification report

4.6 LCC Archaeology: No objection, subject to conditions relating to Written scheme of investigation

Comments dated 02/02/16 Assessment of the above application and consideration of the submitted geophysical survey (AS Rep.: 5010) indicates the above site possess a significant archaeological potential, however on the basis of the geophysical survey alone it is not possible to adequately determine the specific archaeological interest or character of the detected

anomalies. It is therefore recommended that the applicant is now required to undertaken a trial trench evaluation of the site, targeting the results of the current survey, but also assessing apparently ‘quiet’ areas in order to determine the effectiveness of the results so far achieved.

4.7 Environmental Health Officer: No objection. Subject to conditions relating to further noise assessments and Construction method Statement.

4.8 Anglian Water: No objection, subject to condition relating to surface and foul water drainage strategy. The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Market Harborough Water recycling Centre that does not have the capacity for these flows. Development will lead to an unacceptable risk of flooding downstream. A drainage Strategy will need to be prepared to determine the mitigation measures. The proposed method of surface water management does not relate to Anglian Water operated assets.

4.9 Environment Agency: Comment: The impact of the development in terms of urban diffuse and point source pollution has the potential to contribute to sediment loading in the River Jordan and the wider Welland. The additional water that is being displaced will enter the River Jordan and Main Welland. The volume of waste water will increase, placing greater risk on pollution to the Jordan and Welland via points of discharge. Combined, these have the potential to cause deterioration of:

1. Moderate Status of the main Welland waterbody (GB105031045610) 2. Poor status of the Jordan (GB105031045600).

Based on these added pressures and the success of the Catchment Based Approach to date in Market Harborough, we would request consideration to include the following in the granting of any permission granted: Resource in kind (non-cash contribution) to assist with: a. Maintenance of existing improvements in the town centre through working with the Welland Rivers Trust (http://www.wellandriverstrust.org.uk/); b. Project management of appraisal of the reach from the River Jordan through to the business park as far as the A6; c. Providing a project manager to design river improvements for the above reach.

4.10 Lead Local Flood Authority: No objection, subject to condition relating to surface water drainage scheme and finished floor levels, surface water management on site during construction, SuDs maintenance plan and schedule and Infiltration testing.

Comment dated 11/02/16 Advice refusal as the FRA proposes a discharge rate above the greenfield discharge rate and there are issues with the storage estimate for the proposed development.

4.11 Severn Trent: No objection, subject to condition relating to submission of surface water and foul sewerage drainage plans.

4.12 LCC Arboriculturalist: No objection, subject to conditions relating to BS5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction-recommendations.

4.13 The Landscape Partnership (TLP) No objection, broadly sympathetic approach to accommodate the quantum of proposed development within the site. (see Section 2 Landscape and Visual impact under Technical Considerations)

4.14 Network Rail: No objection in principle, subject to conditions relating to drainage, boundary fencing, method statements, soundproofing, lighting and landscaping, the reasons for which can include the safety, operational needs and integrity of the railway. For the other matters (crane and plant equipment, excavation and earthworks, security at the boundary, level crossing, Vibro-impact machinery, encroachment, access and open space) an informative could be attached to the decision notice.

4.15 Kettering Borough Council: Objection (1) recognised there is a 5year shortfall and understood it is an area considered as one of a number of housing allocations across the town, further assessment work still needs to be undertaken to consider site-specifics issues and all potential sites against propose criteria in the emerging settlement development policy, therefore more appropriate to consider this through the plan making process; (2) do not constitute sustainable development in the light of wider landscape impact, particularly noticeable from a south-easterly or south-westerly direction; (3) unrestricted development beyond the settlement boundary and in a prominent location; (4) very limited buffer of soft landscaping to the southern boundary of the site.

Response to EIA: Objects, not considered that the site is suitable location for residential development of the scale proposed. Undoubtedly adverse wider landscape impacts associated with the scheme which could not be effectively mitigated against. Not considered to constitute sustainable development due to its open countryside location and remote position relative to Market Harborough’s town centre and the significant negative impact of the development on the landscape.

4.16 Northamptonshire County Council Highways: No objection 14/07/17 Further information has been provided by the applicant regarding the transport impact of the development. Following previous NCC comments a Technical Note dated May 2016 was prepared. In a subsequent meeting with HDC, LCC Highways and Richard Hall (Northamptonshire Highways), I understand the issues raised by NCC were agreed to have been resolved.

The Technical Note addressed: •Revision of off-site junction surveys to include additional junctions to the study area previously included in the TA and for surveys to be undertaken outside of the school holidays. • Revision of the trip generational analysis to include the 85th percentile trip rates so as to accord with 6C’s Design Guide. • Readjustment to TEMPRO growth factors for the AM and PM peak periods. The forecast year of 2031 in line with NCC North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy. •Inclusion of committed development traffic as identified by NCC in the junction assessments to consider additional recently approved development with adjacent Northamptonshire (Bellway Homes, Harborough Road, Desborough (KET/2012/0528) – 165-unit residential scheme, The Grange Phase II, Desborough (KET2011/0235) – 700-unit residential scheme, Magnetic Park, Harborough Road, Desborough (KET/2011/0545) – employment development, Central England Co-op, Land to the South of Desborough (KET/2016/0044) – 304-unit residential scheme,

and Persimmon Homes, Rothwell North (KET/2007/0461) – 700-unit residential scheme).

From the results of the Technical Note it was demonstrated that there would be a negligible to moderate impact on NCC identified junctions with development traffic impact being a negligible factor in operational capacity. The A6 / A427 Harborough Road / A4304 Rockingham Road / Dingley Road junction operates within capacity for all arms in 2031 with the development traffic, apart from the A4304 Rockingham Road arm in the pm peak which is over capacity in the 2031 base and shows an increase in queuing of 11 vehicles with the development traffic added. We would not be able to justify any improvement with such a small negative impact on the junction performance. The A6/B576 Harborough Road junction operates within capacity in 2031 with the development traffic

The applicant has also provided modelling for the construction of a roundabout junction at the Kettering Road / A6 junction. This junction operates well within capacity (with no queuing of vehicles back toward the proposed site access on the Kettering Road) and has been the subject of an independent Stage 1 RSA. The design has been accepted by LCC.

Comment 2/3/16 Further Information required regarding the suitability of datas from traffic surveys, future year, committed developments, junction capacity assessments, non-motorised user access onto Braybrooke Road.

Comments 6/7/17 Further comments: Suitability of Dates for Traffic Surveys Concerns with dates of manual classified traffic counts (17 July 2015) at various locations is not resolved. Future Year-Request for future year of 2031 is not resolved as 2028 year is used. Committed Developments-Request for account of significant proposed growth in the nearby Northamptonshire towns of Desborough and Rothwell, just down the A6 corridor from Market Harborough is not resolved. Junction Capacity Assessments A6 / A427 Harborough Road / A4304 Rockingham Road / Dingley Road Concerns with the roundabout operating over capacity and requiring mitigation is not resolved as no mitigation is proposed. A6 / Kettering Road Junction We welcome the new roundabout proposed rather than signalisation. However I am unable to find any capacity analysis of the proposed roundabout in the TA Addendum . Non-motorised User Access onto Braybrooke Road- Concerns with pedestrian and cyclist access from the development onto it due to traffic speeds are unresolved

4.17 National Grid: No objection/comment

Section 106 Observations: 4.18 HDC Neighbourhood and Green Spaces Officer: Comments dated 17/01/16 The site generates a requirement for a total of just under 5ha of Open Space. The illustrative masterplan indicates some 12.7ha of parkland and other POS. This is welcomed to achieve screening from sensitive views and provide an environment that is welcoming for residents and provides habitat for wildlife.

A landscape management plan should be provided to ensure that the POS is maintained satisfactorily in perpetuity. The SUDS areas can count towards the provision of natural and semi natural greenspace and the series of ponds referred to in the flood risk assessment should be planted to encourage habitat and biodiversity. Maintenance of the SUDS should be clarified

Footpath connectivity to adjoining POS is important and I note that this is indicated on the masterplan (now on Parameters plan). This will allow walking and cycling into the Town and also give routes for exercise and dog walking etc. If routes are not sufficiently wide for joint use of cyclists and pedestrians, thought should be given to how this can be accommodated to encourage links to the Town to be used by both.

While provision of outdoor sports facilities is not generated by this development because of an existing oversupply of sports pitches, a school site is proposed which will require outdoor sports provision. It should be clarified how this will be provided, including the specification for construction, and which sports it will cater for. Consideration should also be given whether all weather surfaces will need to be provided for the school. The sports development team and the LEA will comment further on this.

The site photographs that existing trees are present within the site. It appears these have been retained as part of the design and this approach is welcomed. It is important that a tree protection zones are set up round all retained trees during the build programme.

The Officer has requested off site contribution towards provision of additional cemetery space.

4.19 LCC Education: The Officer has asked the LPA to secure a new Primary School on site together with a financial contribution towards its building costs and a financial contribution towards secondary (11-18) and Special schools education from the developer.

4.20 LCC Civic Amenity: The Officer has asked the LPA to secure a financial contribution from the developer towards the civic amenity waste facility at Market Harborough.

4.21 LCC Libraries: The Officer has asked the LPA to secure a financial contribution from the developer towards the delivery of library facilities in Market Harborough.

4.22 HDC Strategic Housing Officer: The Officer has advised the LPA to seek 30% Affordable Housing on site in accordance with Policy CS3. On a site proposal of 600 units, this will equal 180 AH units. Our current tenure split requirements are for the affordable requirement to be provided as 60% rented and 40% to be provided as intermediate or shared ownership. We will be flexible in our approach to tenures.

4.23 Police: The Officer has requested a developer contribution to ensure existing levels of Policing are maintained.

4.24 HDC Parish Liaison Officer: The Officer has requested new on-site community facility with changing rooms.

4.25 PCT (NHS): The Manager has asked the LPA to secure a developer contribution towards additional GP accommodation to be provided at Two Shires and Market Harborough medical Centres.

13 b) Local Community

4.26 Market Harborough Civic Society: Objection: (1) not sustainable, will make no contribution to Councils Housing supply problem; (2) site is remote from major facilities, developer concentrates on access to the town centre need to consider access to hospital, employment at Airfield Farm, leisure facilities in Northampton Road, access to secondary Education (3) developers attempts to improve bus services will not attract people from their car. Bus services need to be more frequent, more reliable and joined up; (4) no connections with other communities in the Town, due to remoteness, length of journey and gradients in and outside the site will impact on those who may wish to walk/cycle; (5) population is getting older, bungalows are provided which could attract the elderly, and they will need to use the car; (6) decision where extra housing is to be sited is yet to be made through the Local Plan for the District. Already a commitment to building over 2000 houses in Market Harborough by 2031, it can’t take anymore (7) intrusion into essential rural setting of attractive market town, such developments will detract from town essential qualities and detrimental to views from adjacent countryside and Brampton Valley Way; (8) highways issues, will aggravate the problems and cause disturbance and danger to other road users and residents, problem areas are Kettering Road bridge, Springfield Street/St Mary’s Road system, Scotland Road and Gores Lane system; provision of local services on the site is not realistic or demonstrated to be viable.

Response to EIA: As previous (1) Not sustainable, no allowance made for the problems faced in getting to the services (2) Developer not considered the problems which already exist in the town, i.e. at various junctions, solutions to problems have not been identified nor how they will be financed (3) remove from major facilities (4) relief road provision local facilities not realistic or demonstrated to be viable. (5) customers to the facilities will cause congestion.

Response to Addendum: see previous comments

4.27 Braybrooke Parish Council: objection (1) buildings in open countryside contrary to local and national policy; (2) Market Harborough Landscape Character Assessment 2007/09 states “the immediate landscape setting of Market Harborough is very vulnerable to inappropriately sited development… it is important that care is taken to prevent further new development that impacts upon the ridgeline and valley base as well as viewed from the wider landscape setting of Market Harborough.” (3) access for pedestrians and cyclists under the rail line, however, Braybrooke Road is fast flowing road so this would create a hazard for traffic and danger to cyclists; (4) additional traffic will compound existing problems at Gores Lane/Bellfield staggered junction, and Braybrooke Road where traffic backs up to Scotland Road from the Northampton Road junction; (5) impact upon Police resources; (6) considerable grading of slopes would be required with the consequent disruption to the natural run off and drainage implications; (7) size and rising grounds means it would detract from the natural beauty of the valley (8) adverse visual impact from local heritage battlefield sites.

4.28 Harrington Parish Council: objection (1) encroach on green belt between Braybrooke and Market Harborough; (2) this beautiful southern hillside is visible for many miles the buildings would interrupt the rural panorama. Discordant aspect continuous day and night, light pollution would be very significant; (3) spoiling the landscape will have a detrimental impact upon tourism, the Macmillan, Midshires, Jurassic and Brampton Valley Ways will be affected; (4) present infrastructure incapable of supporting 600 houses, all need improving before housing is built (5) significant impact upon traffic flow in particular a the railway bridge; (6) at present Market Harborough is a thriving county town, fear the development will reduce the use of local facilities and access to shops in the centre because the increased difficulty the development will cause to both access and parking.

4.29 NNRAID ‘North Northamptonshire Residents Against Inappropriate Development’: (1) open countryside (2) if allowed, fields bordering the development become vulnerable, urban creep down the valley becomes more likely; (3) detract from the natural beauty of the area; (4) significant increase in traffic, aggravate the bottleneck problem under the railway bridge; (5) compound the existing problem in the immediate area in particular Bellfield’s Lane a ‘rat run’ to Northampton Road increase the risk of accidents (6) Infrastructure resources become over-stretched; (7) Market Harborough Landscape Character Assessment 2007/09 states “the immediate landscape setting of Market Harborough is very vulnerable to inappropriately sited development… it is important that care is taken to prevent further new development that impacts upon the ridgeline and valley base as well as viewed from the wider landscape setting of Market Harborough.” Still relevant today, request it is refused.

4.30 Great Oxendon Parish objection (1) negative impact upon the landscape (2) unmanaged traffic growth additional traffic generated will have a negative impact upon Market Harborough and the villages.

4.31 40 letters (including emails) of objection from 37 households (2 of which where from Leicester and Oakham) were received in response to the initial consultation process. A summary of the representations received is outlined below: Highways (1) traffic report data compiled in school summer holidays, therefore not a true representation of current traffic difficulties in Market Harborough (2) the recent County Council changes to A6/Clack Hill have put a major strain on Kettering Road/Gores Lane Junction, Ashley Way exit onto Rockingham Road and Tesco roundabout with application this will be magnified beyond belief. (3) the assertion in the transport report that there is no evidence of excessive queuing on any arms of the surveyed junctions is ludicrous, the queuing along Gores Lane and Kettering Road railway bridge is a significant issue, and the roundabout at the end of Kettering Road is often gridlocked. It has been made worse by the Rockingham View development and further by the Overstone house development. The proposal will cause major issues and delays. (4) The increase in traffic will result in increase in traffic using Bellfields Lane/Scotland Road as a cut through to Northampton Road, significantly increasing the risk to children walking and cycling to Little Bowden School.

(5) undertook our own 20mins survey 8am on Kettering Road 7/1/16 87 eastbound and westbound 127, over a 3 hour period eastbound 783 vehicles and 1143 vehicles westbound, this seems a truer reflection of traffic on Kettering Road. (6) emphasis that residents will walk or cycle into town ignores the fact the development is at the top of a steep hill (7) Gores Lane/Kettering Road junction and railway bridge right of way is already dreadful and the rail bridge (single lane) can not be changed or widened to improve the situation. Residents will simply cut down Ashley Way or head east along Gores Road instead of heading into town and that adds dangers on the estate and to its school traffic. (8) why is a roundabout acceptable now and not for the development on the other side of Kettering Road (9) reviewing the travel plan after 50% occupancy is laughable by then they have planning permission (10) roads going into town cannot support a further 600 houses from this location. Kettering Road is NOW frequently gridlocked, and Aldi/Lidl roundabout to the traffic lights at Sainsbury’s is gridlocked. (11) massive increase in traffic using Ashley Way, Gorse Lane and Kettering Road and cause delays on the A6. (12) Absence of real viable and sustainable travel initiates- footpaths beside Kettering Road long steep incline hence walking/cycling up and down hill not viable for many people; not designated cycleway; nearest bus stop is 550m away; bus route to Braybrooke is other side of railway line therefore no access; (13) moderate impact on the operation of the highways affecting all residents on the south side of this town is unacceptable. (14) the junction of Gores Lane /Kettering Road/Bellfields Land and Scotland Road onto Northampton Road not included in traffic assessment despite being a major congestion point. (15) the distances quoted to all amenities listed are significantly underestimated, services are generally over 2km including a steep hill. (16) an access onto Braybrooke Road would alleviate the potential bottleneck situation at the top of Clack Hill. A large isolated estate with few road links to the town would serve no-ones needs, a new roundabout serving the development will be hopelessly inadequate. (17) the impact of the three new developments on Glebe Road, Overstone House and Clack Hill has not yet been assessed. (18) Glebe Road and Overstone House estates could not carry large amounts of traffic. (19) parking issue not addressed (20) Only one access point for the whole development, (other developments i.e. Ashley Way has several accesses onto Kettering Road and Rockingham Way which avoids overloading any one particular traffic route into and out of town); (21) Need to incorporate a link round to the Northampton Road to allow traffic to flow in differing directions to avoid sending everything into the congested town centre. (22) speed and volume of traffic on Kettering Road is too high the development would make the situation considerably worse, adding to noise pollution, congestion and road danger in the area. (23) local roads are already groaning under the weight of significant housing development over the last 2 decades, which has not been accompanied by commensurate road investment. Residential amenity: (1) Loss of views, privacy, overbearing impact (2) Noise, dust from development Landscape/visual

(1) Welland Valley Character area, “It is important that care is taken to prevent further new development that impacts on the ridgeline and valley base and well as views from the wider landscape setting” (MHLCA 2007/2009) the entire development will be visible from Braybrooke, Great Oxendon and East Farndon; (2) proposal will extend out of the valley, involve building along the crest of the hill and houses will be highly visible along the ridgeline as seen from the south-east; (3) the ridgeline has a line of tree which will be obscured by the new houses giving a very different charterer to the ridgeline; (4) mitigation measures such as the retention of hedgerows and trees will be inadequate and end up being removed, like other development sites. (5) destroying the town and its character, losing the small market town feel. (6) building in open countryside, contrary to local and national policy. Open countryside should be preserved and treasured particularly when there has been so much building already. (7) the entrance to Market Harborough from the top of Clack Hill is still one of the special features and attractions of the Town, overbearing impact detriment to everyone. (8) overbearing on Little Bowden, visible from all parts of the village and approaches. (9) Market Harborough is desirable place to live due to rural setting and thriving nature of town centre, the proposal will undermine both aspects, scale of development will significantly impact upon the vistas of the rural landscape and create a sense of claustrophobia. Sustainability/Infrastructure (1) drain on already over-stretched local infrastructure/facilities. (2) Unsustainable increase population, already overcrowded town, it can’t take the pressure (3) there are large scale development still to be built to the north and finished in the south-west for which the genuine effects on the infrastructure are unknown. (4) supporting facilities take years to be provided what happens for existing residents. (5) detrimental on the towns infrastructure environment and atmosphere; (6) Lack of detail re. access to local services; (7) No details on how and when school will be built; (8) Concern over access to health care and doctors; (9) Travelling to secondary school would be a significant distance; (10) the prospect of single doctor branch surgery being viable is highly unlikely with the present trend from merging practices to merge for economies of scale and provide enhanced services. (11) Understand the need for more housing (12) old utilities will not cope; (13) developers minimal provisions will not meet the needs of a significant development (14) mini local centre poses a risk of fragmenting and undermining the sense of genuine community that Harborough enjoys in tis town centre. (15) post BREXIT and the need for such a development at this time, a decision should only be made when the UK government has reviewed policy, Market Harborough has more then met its quota. Environmental: (1) Contamination issues should be done before a decision is made; (2) Loss of Oak trees are a real loss and could compromise bat roosts; (3) Badger sett severely disturbed. (4) Flooding will inevitability be a problem; Other issues (1) Crime rate will go up

Response to EIA:

14 letters objection from 10 separate households, as previous, (1) major adverse impact on site related landscape characteristics, (2) skyline will be dramatically affected. (3) destruction of all or most of archaeological remains results in a significant adverse effect. (4) disrupt bats (5) mitigation by providing a park area at the bottom of the site hidden by the railway line is inadequate.

Response to Addendum: 17 letters objection from 15 separate households, as previous, (1) a roundabout metres from the A6 at busy times will cause havoc on the A6 (2) what about schools for over 11 years (3) Surface water drainage problems in adjacent site and visible on application site (4) Construction hours (5) building proximity to nearby dwellings (6) roads within the new Carey Homes estate will become main route, cut through and are not high capacity roads, houses are close to the roads (7) increase in traffic on Coleridge Way, in particular from school traffic (8) safety implications with children and the park (9) use of Coleridge Way and Wordsworth used by builders etc.

4.32 Cllr D. Howes, Ward Councillor for Welland Ward on Kettering BC; Objects: (1) impact upon the ridgeline and valley base; (2) access onto Braybrooke Road, fast road therefore hazard to traffic and cyclists; (3) additional traffic compound other existing problems areas one is where vehicles try to cross the Kettering Road on the Bellsfield Lane/Gores Lane staggered junction. Bellsfield Lane is a known 'rat-run' from the A508/Northampton Road to the east side of Market Harborough. The second pinch-point is on Braybrooke Road where traffic backs up to Scotland Road from the junction with the A508 Northampton Road. With the extra traffic from the development, these problems would only get worse and increase the risk of accidents; (4) impact upon Policy resources; (5) re-grading of the slopes cause disruption to natural run-off and drainage implications; (6) Macmillan, Midshires and Jurassic Ways pass across the valley, the development on rising ground of considerable size would detract from the natural beauty of the valley.

5. Planning Policy Considerations 5.1 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the development plan (hereafter referred to as the ‘DP’), unless material considerations indicate otherwise. a) Development Plan and material planning considerations

5.2 The material considerations to be taken into account in considering the merits of this application include, amongst others, the National Planning Policy Framework, the National Planning Policy Guidance, the Environmental Statement information, together with responses from consultees and representations received from all other interested parties in relation to material planning matters. Please find the relevant policies in the front of the Agenda.

• The Framework Sections: Section 4: Sustainable Transport; Section 5: Supporting high quality communications infrastructure; Section 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes; Section 7: Requiring good design Section 8: Promoting Healthy communities

Section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change. Section 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

• Harborough District Core Strategy CS1 - Spatial strategy CS2 – Delivering Housing Choice and affordability CS5 – Providing sustainable transport CS6 - Improving town centre and retailing CS7 - Enabling employment and business opportunity CS9 - Addressing Climate Change CS11 – Promoting design and built heritage CS17 – Countryside, rural centres and rural villages CS12 – Delivering Development and supporting infrastructure. CS13 – Market Harborough

• Supplementary Planning Guidance SPG 1 – Design Principles SPG2 – Residential Development – Major Housing sites. SPG Note 9 – Landscape and new development SPG Note 10 - Tree and Development SPG Note 12 - Lighting in town and country

• Harborough Local Plan 2011 -2031 MH1 Overstone Park

• Harborough District Council Landscape Character Assessment 2007

• The Market Harborough Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Capacity Study (2009).

• Housing and Employment Development needs Assessment (HEDNA) GL Hearn January 2017 b) Other Relevant Information

5.3 This application is to be determined by Planning Committee because of the size and nature of the proposed development and number of objections.

6. Assessment a) Principle of Development 6.1 The Framework states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and LPA’s are encouraged to approach decision taking in a sustainable way to foster sustainable development.

6.2 The Framework identifies three dimensions to sustainable development, those being economic, social and environmental. The Planning System is identified as having a role in each of these dimensions:

• Economic: ensuring the right land is available to support growth and innovation and ensuring that investment (including infrastructure) is properly co-ordinated; • Social: supporting healthy and vibrant communities through housing supply, high quality built environments and ensuring accessible local services; and

• Environmental: protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment, improving bio-diversity and managing the use of natural resources, particularly carbon.

6.3 The application site is an agricultural field (greenfield land) which lies outside the defined Limits of development of Market Harborough (as established by the Harborough District Saved Local Plan Policy HS/8) as such the site is designated open countryside. Policy CS17 strictly controls new development in the open countryside. This housing site does not fall within the list of development allowed by that policy.

6.4 However, the limits of development were adopted some 15 years ago in the context of different national planning policy. Policy HS/8 is inconsistent with relevant policies on sustainable housing development contained in The Framework. As a consequence limited weight should be given to Policy HS/8. Policy CS2(a) of the Adopted Core Strategy does permit housing development outside the Limits of Development where the Councils supply of deliverable housing has fallen below five years, and the proposal is in keeping with scale and character of the settlement (this is explored later in the report).

6.5 The Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply (4.53 years) [Interim up-date Dec. 2017]. In those circumstances para.14 of The Framework (NPPF) states that relevant housing supply policies should not be considered up-to- date. The presumption in favour of sustainable development means that unless material considerations indicate otherwise planning permission should be granted, unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole (para.14). In making any such assessment of adverse impacts and benefits, appropriate weight should be attached to all aspects of the Development Plan policies which are not out-of-date and which remain in accordance with The Framework.

6.6 The adopted 2001 Local Plan was not designed to accommodate development needs beyond 2006. It follows that the adopted plan is time-expired, and as The Framework advises, the relevant policies for the supply of housing cannot be considered up-to- date. The adopted Core Strategy Policy CS2, is considered out of date as it is pre NPPF. The housing data has been up-dated by the HEDNA, and the Objectively Assessed Need for the district is a minimum of 4,600 new homes during the plan period to 2031, this includes the housing allocation at Overstone Park (application site).

6.7 Other adopted policies in the Core Strategy should be given significant weight. Policies CS5 on sustainable transport, encourages future development to be well serviced by local services, provide a coordinated delivery of transport improvements, with mitigation works that should be geared to transport improvements that are strategically beneficial, and safe pedestrian and cycling facilities. CS7 on enabling employment and business development, supports employment development that strengthens Market Harborough’s role as a principal town within the District. CS9 on climate change, supports new development that is directed towards the most sustainable locations and militates against any potential impacts upon the environment. Plus the use of renewable and low carbon energy sources are promoted. CS10 addressing flood risk, new development will be directed towards areas at lowest risk of flooding within the district, with priority given to land within Flood Zone 1, Surface water run-off will be managed to minimise the net increase in surface water discharge, Market Harborough is particularly sensitive, the use of

Sustainable drainage systems will be expected. CS11 which promotes design and built heritage, states development should be sympathetic to the local area, ensure the amenities of existing and future residents are safeguarded and heritage assets are protected, conserved and enhanced.

6.8 Policy CS13 Market Harborough the pre-text explains that Market Harborough serves as the principal town in the district for retail, employment, administrative and transport purposes. It forms the service centre for a large part of the District and parts of North Northamptonshire. The existence of a broad range of daily and higher order services and facilities, together with improvements to the Leicester and London rail service and good inter urban bus service makes Market Harborough the most sustainable location for future development in the District. The Policy states that the town will be the main focus for additional development and that this growth will be accommodated in a manner which respects Market Harborough’s role as a historic town and which safeguards its compact and attractive character by various transport interventions, support and enhance employment opportunity, ensure the viability and vitality of town centre retailing. Policy CS17 relates to development in open countryside. The application site is adjacent to the ‘Limits of Development’ at The Heights and Shrewsbury Avenue, and adjacent to subsequent residential schemes of Glebe Road and Overstone House that were built outside the limits of development.

6.9 Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031 was submitted to the Secretary of State for Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government via the Planning Inspectorate on Friday 16th March 2018. An Examination is expected during 2018. Local Plan policy MH1 Overstone Park is a proposed site allocation for about 600 dwellings in the new Local Plan. Due to the status of the new local Plan it is now a material consideration with limited weight, as it is considered that there is no guarantee that this will be found sound at the Examination.

6.10 Points 1 a-l have been analysed, developed and addressed over the last five years by the applicant/agent. All of the above are addressed in the report.

Locational sustainability and accessibility 6.11 The Core Planning principles states that planning should actively managed patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable.

6.12 Less than 800m is considered the reasonable walking distance (800m; 10-15mins of any key services) which would encourage less car use and shorter journeys, extending the distance to 1.2km is also considered acceptable. There are no local amenities, only small green spaces when measured from the central point within 800metres of the application site. However, it should be noted that Overstone House and Glebe Road residential developments close to the application site were approved and considered sustainable locations.

6.13 The applicant has submitted a Technical Note on Accessibility (Milestone October 2017). In the report it is considered reasonable to extend maximum walking distance to 2km from a site and a distance of 5km is considered reasonable for journeys by bike. (Institute for Highways and Transportation document ‘Guidelines for providing for journeys on Foot’ (2000). This is confirmed as an acceptable approach by the Highways Officer.

6.14 The services and facilities distances from the site is: • Primary school is Little Bowden Primary school at 1km, • Welland Park secondary school is 1.6km. • Medical centre is 1.9km and dental surgery is 1.2km. • Play area and playing field at 0.4 and 0.6km away. • Supermarkets (Waitrose Aldi and Lidl) are 1.1km away. • The town centre retail shops and leisure facilities are within 2km. • The leisure centre is 2.2km away.

6.15. There are a number of design features that encourage sustainable movement, upgrade to the footpath along Kettering Road, dedicated pedestrian crossing facilities. The nearest bus stop is 550m west on Kettering Road served by bus route 33 (town circular service) operates on an hourly basis during weekdays and weekends. This is proposed to be extended into the application site. On Braybrooke Road (1.1km) a bus route served by X43 and 43 operates between nearby towns. An extra bus stop is proposed on both sides of Braybrooke Road. Rural rider services operate from Market Harborough bus station which is 1.7km from the site. The railway station is located 1.7km from the site with provision for 44 sheltered cycle stands. There is also the implementation of the travel plan (see Condition 11). Therefore the proposal is considered to be in a sustainable location. This conclusion is supported by the Council Sustainability Appraisal. In any event the scheme includes a local school, local centre with provision for local shops, community centre, nursery, medical centre and café, which brings walking distances down to less than maximum reasonable distances.

6.15 The Schools location is to meet HDC requirement for the school site to be within 400m of existing and future housing and OPUN advice to include school adjacent to the local centre and easily accessible from the main site access.

6.16 The Sustainability Appraisal carried out for the Council by Aecom Sept. 2017 indicates that the application site performs well in terms of promoting sustainable growth. In particular in terms of access to jobs, links to train station, principal roads, landscape capacity, unlikely to have a major influence the natural environment, built and natural heritage, infrastructure, resilience (flooding) and employment.

Sustainability Appraisal

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 6.17 The application site was put forward in the 2015 Harborough District Council Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (Ref: A/MH/HSG/35). The Council assessed that the site was potentially suitable for development subject to contamination and highways issues, the site was considered available for development as it had a single owner and could be available in 5 years. The physical constraints were unlikely to make the development un-viable due to the sites scale therefore it is considered achievable. The estimated capacity of the site at 30/ha was 591 dwellings.

Conclusion: 6. 18 The District’s shortfall in the supply of deliverable housing land adds substantial material weight in favour of this proposal. Mindful of the conclusions of the 2009 Landscape capacity study, the Local Planning Authority’s latest housing supply position and the locational sustainable nature of the development, the principle of residential development in outline is a judged to be acceptable, subject to technical issues and other sustainable development dimensions.

b) Technical Considerations

1. Landscape and visual impact 6.19 The ES contains a chapter (chapter 5) on Landscape and Visual. This is supported by The Harborough District Council Landscape Character Assessment 2007 and The Market Harborough Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Capacity Study (2009) and the Addendum LVIA.

6.20 The Application was originally supported by a Landscape Visual Appraisal. The Landscape Partnership concluded that a full LVIA should be carried out given the site characteristics. A Full LVIA was submitted with the EIA. The Landscape Partnership concluded that from the EIA material submitted that there is no justification for placing large and high structures (18 metres) on sensitive parts of the site. Furthermore the internal arrangement raises a question over the ability to break up the mass of built form due to the limited spaces available within the internal streets and open spaces, therefore TLP advised that a revised scheme should be sought of smaller number of units and reduced scale in sensitive location. Following extensive landscape discussions and Addendum LVIA was submitted, the numbers of dwellings stayed the same, but the height of buildings was lowered (dwellings max. 9metres, local centre and school 8 metres and the sports hall 10metres) and the impact demonstrated on photomontages.

Landscape Character and Capacity 6.21 Harborough District Council Landscape Character Assessment (2007) indicates the site is located within the Welland Valley Landscape Character Area. Key characteristics of this Landscape Character Area are listed as: • gently meandering river in a wide and shallow valley, little tree cover, pasture on the floodplains, arable farming on the valley sides, • Market Harborough operating as a traditional market town is the dominant urban influence. • The character area has a medium capacity to accept small scale development. • Within the areas immediately surrounding Market Harborough, development is possible with consideration of issues such as layout, natural extents and envelope defined in the main by topographical features.

Key issues identified: ◦ the relatively flat and open landscape is vulnerable to adverse visual and landscape impacts of development; the immediate landscape setting to Market Harborough is very vulnerable to inappropriately sited development, both in the valley base to the east………It is important that care is taken to prevent further new development that impacts on the ridgeline and valley bases, as well as views from the wider landscape setting of Market Harborough; and ◦ the generalised lack of woodland cover across the landscape character area means that new development must be well mitigated to minimise impacts. ◦Opportunities for new woodland screen planting should be encouraged alongside and new development proposals.

6.22 The Market Harborough Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Capacity Study (2009), indicates the application site consists of two Local Landscape Character Areas (LLCA) Clack Hill Ridge LLCA No.5 (northern section of application site) and Jordan Valley Slopes (North) LLCA No.6 (southern section of application site).

Figure 2: Local Landscape Character Areas

Clack Hill Ridge: Key characteristics: ◦ elevated ridgeline and views towards Market Harborough and High Leicestershire; ◦ small to medium pastoral fields with evidence of ridge and furrow; ◦ large arable fields further from Market Harborough; ◦ large woodland block features, particularly as the ridgeline enters Northamptonshire; ◦ number of ponds; ◦ more domestic scale with ornamental planting.

Distinctive features: ◦ Triangulation point on top of Clack Hill; ◦ ridge and furrow; ◦ overhead power lines; ◦ Area of former quarrying north of Kettering Road; ◦ A6; and ◦ Overstone House.

Jordan Valley Slopes (north and south): Key Characteristics: ◦ gently sloping landform is part of the broad valley sides of River Jordan; ◦ Predominantly large arable fields, with occasional smaller pastoral fields; ◦ hedgerows infrequent and typically low with little variety; ◦ some field trees, particularly north of River Jordan; ◦ strong visual influence of Market Harborough and transport corridors, particularly new commercial development to the south of Market Harborough; ◦ tributaries of the River Jordan gently meander through the area; ◦ many ponds present.

Distinctive features: ◦ Landforms that maybe former quarrying east of Glebe Road; ◦ Overhead cables;

◦ Brampton valley cycleway along dismantled railway; ◦ Riparian vegetation along tributary of River Jordan; ◦ Mainline railway; fishing lake.

6.23 The Study concludes that Jordan Valley Slopes North and Clack Hill Ridge there is a MODERATE/LOW sensitivity to development.

Figure 3: Local Landscape Character area Sensitivity.

6.24 In terms of landscape capacity of development, the application site covers 4 parcels of land.

Figure 4: Individual Land Parcels – Capacity.

• Parcel 22 (north eastern section) MEDIUM capacity for development: • Parcel 22A (south-eastern section) MEDIUM/HIGH capacity for development • Parcel 23 (The Knoll north-western section) MEDIUM/HIGH capacity for development • Parcel 24 (Southern and south-western section) HIGH capacity for development

6.25 Parcel 22 (north-east section of site): • Is within the Clack Hill ridge Character Area. • It is situated on land that drops away steeply from the ridgeline towards the River Jordan. • There is limited vegetation along the boundaries allowing views into the parcel from the Kettering Road in particular. • Currently arable farmland, with low poor quality hedgerow and occasional hedgerow trees, no built form. • No Public Rights of Way and few private properties have views into it. • Separated from the built form of Market Harborough, vehicular access into the site would be possible.

Residential development is felt more appropriate in this location, subject to the following mitigation measures. ◦ Retain existing landscape features and vegetation, ◦ Retain important views across the Jordan valley to the south; ◦ additional planting is likely to be necessary to contain development from the open countryside, woodland blocks would be appropriate to enhance the characteristics of the rest of the ridgeline; ◦ 2 storey max. building heights; and ◦ layouts for buildings would need to work with the sloping ground to minimise cut and fill.

6.26 Parcel 22A (south-east section of site): • the land gently slopes towards the River Jordan, with limited vegetation on the boundaries. • The railway forms the southern boundary where there are extensive areas of vegetation. • Large arable field with low poor quality hedgerow and occasional trees, there is no built form. • There are no public rights of way; there are elevated views into the parcel from the Kettering Road. Few private properties have views into the parcel. • It is separated from the existing built form of Market Harborough.

Residential development is felt more appropriate in this location, subject to the following mitigation measures: ◦ Retain the few landscape features there are, including the vegetation along the railway line which forms a wildlife corridor; ◦ retain views over the top of the development to the rolling hills beyond the Jordan Valley; ◦ additional planting is likely to be necessary to screen any development, woodland blocks would be appropriate to integrate with the surrounding ridgeline landscape and new hedgerows to the edge of Market Harborough; ◦ 2 storey high as per adjacent parcels; ◦ layout to follow topography of valley sides.

6.27 Parcel 23 (The Knoll, north-west section of the site): • the parcel is well contained by existing native hedgerows in particular, along Kettering Road allowing glimpsed views into it, (includes Overstone House). • It is currently pastoral farmland with evidence of ridge and furrow. • There is an overhead power cable running through the site. • No rights of way. • There are only glimpsed views from into the parcel from the Kettering Road.

Residential development is felt more appropriate in this location, subject to the following mitigation measures: ◦ Retain existing hedgerows and occasionally trees; ◦ there are only occasional glimpsed views and development within it is unlikely to impact upon wider views; ◦ additional planting could be used to re-inforce hedgerows ◦ 2 storey max. building heights; ◦ open space should be focused on the existing vegetation features and corridors to be retained.

6.28 Parcel 24 (south-west section of the site): • the parcel is relatively well contained by existing native vegetation along the railway line and along the rear boundaries of properties between the parcel and Kettering Road. • There are occasional glimpsed views in to the parcel from Glebe Road and south of the railway line. • The land parcel is arable farmland and rough grassland to the east (Rockingham View). • There are individual field trees, predominately a line of oaks probably follow the alignment of a former hedgerow and some mature hedgerow trees. • Overhead power lines run through the parcel. • No public right of way. There are glimpsed views in to the land parcel from Glebe Road and south of the railway line and areas on the south side of the River Jordan

can see into the parcel. Some properties on Shrewsbury Avenue and The Heights can see into the parcel from upper floors. • It has a good relationship with the existing built edge of Market Harborough.

Residential development is felt more appropriate in this location, subject to the following mitigation measures: ◦ Mature hedgerow and trees should be retained. ◦ Impact on views from the south of the Jordan valley should be considered. ◦ Additional planting could be used to soften the eastern edge views towards the development from the other side of the River Jordan cannot be screened by on-site planting. ◦ Maximum building height of 2 storeys. ◦ Layout should respect the existing housing to the north, proximity to the railway line and the sloping ground. ◦ Wildlife corridor should be retained and enhanced.

6.29 The LVIA report confirms that the site does not lie within any nationally designated landscapes. The agent argues that with residential developments at Clack Hill, Rockingham View and Overstone House the context and the juxtaposition of the site in regard to the urban area has strengthened since the study. The Landscape partnership acknowledges that the proposed form of development would enable views across the site to the south-west towards the wider landscape to be retained. The Councils consultant considers that the development would represent ‘a notable extension of Market Harborough into the rural landscape on elevated ground to the south-east. From some directions parts of the site (parcel 24) appears a logical extension to the town while from other directions the presence of Market Harborough is less apparent and the effects are greater (parcel 22).’

6.30 The Impact Assessment in the ES and The Landscape Partnerships (TLP: advising Harborough District Council) findings are set out in the table below. There is some difference in professional opinion, however, this is not significant. Overall it is concluded that there is a major adverse effect which is significant.

Summary of significance of landscape character effects

6.31 In conclusion, The Market Harborough Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Capacity Study (2009), identified the site (Parcel 22, 23, 23A and 24) as

having HIGH, MEDIUM/HIGH and MEDIUM landscape capacity for development. The Study concludes that Jordan Valley Slopes North and Clack Hill Ridge character areas are of a MODERATE/LOW sensitivity to development. Therefore overall the site would appear to be a favourable site for residential development in landscape terms subject to mitigation measures.

Visual Effects 6.32 Visual impact relates to the effect on receptors i.e. nearby residents, road users and users of public rights of way. The application was accompanied by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA). The visual envelope is restricted partly by residential development to the north and west and the existing landform to the north. The LVIA includes photomontages and panoramas relating to 10 viewpoints (VP) and broken down to phase 1, phase 2 and Year 15.

6.33 In close proximity to the site VP 1 from the Kettering Road (immediately to the north of the application site) the receptors are road users. This viewpoint looks beyond the site where the landform becomes more expansive providing views across the Jordan Valley. VP2 is from open space at Rockingham View, VP3 is footpath east of the site, VP3 from the Harborough Road to Braybrooke village (c. 466m) the receptors for this VP are road users.

6.34 Medium distance views are VP5/6 near the footpath near the Brampton Valley Way (c.1.3km), receptors include footpath users. The Brampton Valley Way is mostly a wooded route therefore the application site is only viewed in certain locations along the Way. There is a full view available of the site in its overall setting. VP7 from footpath A59 on the southern edge of Market Harborough (c.1.4km) receptors include footpath users and leisure users. The woodland to the north of the site is visible on the horizon and the railway line to the lower levels. east of Great Oxendon.

6.35 Long distance viewpoints are VP8 Jurassic Way and VP9 Braybrooke Road (east of Great Oxendon) (c.3km.) receptors include residential properties, road and footpath users. The trees at Windy Ridge, The Heights and Overstone House residential developments are visible on the horizon as are utility infrastructure. The scale of the development is considered to be in keeping with the scale of the view.

6.36 The Applicants consultants report considers that the proposal would be seen as an extension to Market Harborough, resulting in a visual coalescence which would be compatible with the existing settlement. The report concludes that the proposed development will be clearly visible from all 10 viewpoints. The scale and scope of the built form and would be in keeping with the scale of the view. The retained and proposed planting will produce some positive visual benefits. External and internal boundaries are proved to be important features that give the site character and identity. The viewpoints illustrate the wider importance of enhancing the southern boundary by adding the wooded area along the railway line. The landscape to the east will provide an important visual separation from the agricultural areas.

6.37 The Impact Assessment in the ES and The Landscape Partnerships findings are set out in the table below. There is some difference in professional opinion; however, this is not significant. Overall the LVIA identified Significant effects at Viewpoints 2 and 6 (phases 1—2) TLP have identified significant effects (i.e. moderate to major and major) at Viewpoints 2, 4 and 6 (Phases 1-2 and year 15), close proximity from the west, south and south-east of the site

Summary of significance of visual effects

6.38 The Landscape Partnership concludes that as the site occupies a relatively open and steeply sloping ground rising up to the Clack Hill ridge, it represents a significant visual intrusion that is out of character with the existing rural character from some viewpoints. However, there are areas of residential development in close proximity to the edge of Market Harborough which moderates the level of effect. The change in the scheme to reduce the heights of the local centre from 18metres to 8metres and housing areas from 9-12metres to max. two storey/9metres, is a positive change in reducing the visual effects on the wider landscape. The wide range of illustrative

proposal helps to demonstrates that the housing development would limit effects on the local skyline.

6.39 To mitigate the impacts of development on the site: • Existing landscape features are retained i.e. boundary hedgerow to the north and east and TPO oak trees; • Important views are retained i.e. retention of open panoramic views to the south, integration of retained and proposed planting and open space to prevent mass of built form; • Additional planting i.e. landscape buffer c.50m along the eastern section, enhancement of boundary hedgerows, tree planting in open space and along internal roads, potential provision for green corridors; • Development layout, i.e. creation of character areas supported by the design code, housing arranged in small clusters pedestrian only entrances and cycle routes along the northern and southern boundaries; and • Open space provision and green infrastructure i.e. preservation of existing open spaces (The Knoll), incorporation of new open spaces, trails and paths and provision of views out of the site from open spaces..

6.40 Officer comment: It is considered that given the scale of the development and its position on sloping land, the proposal can not easily be mitigated, such that impact is removed, there is only the raised part of the railway line and only a few internal landscape features that would reduce the dominance of the dwellings. However, the mitigation measures have been very carefully considered and developed, and the whole design approach has been landscape orientated, and responded to the mitigation measures set out in the Market Harborough Landscape Character Assessment and land Capacity Study (2009), given independent advice, it is considered that on balance the landscape and visual impact is considered acceptable .

2. Design 6.41 Notwithstanding that layout, scale and external appearance of the proposed development is a reserved matter, the DAS, Design Code and the Illustrative Composite Masterplan submitted demonstrate how the site could be developed. The Opportunities and Constraints plan and Parameters plan aided this process.

Opportunities and Constraints plan

Main Opportunities Main Constraints Creation of defined areas/principal nodes Site topography/soil Creation of route to recent res. Train line development Creation of attractive frontage to Mature trees countryside Visual continuity of open space at Overhead cables Rockingham View

Parameters plan

Housing layout, mix and density: 6.42 As the application is in outline, the precise mixture of dwelling types is not yet known and is a matter that would be considered at Reserved Matters. The Planning Statement confirms a mixture of housing types would be provided on site. Market and Affordable housing has been broken down in line with HEDNA tables 55 and 57, this would be a condition on any consent (Condition 22), to ensure market and affordable housing type reflects the local housing need.

Housing mix tables: HEDNA 2017

6.43 The site area is 35.84ha of this 11.45ha is public open space, including the SuDs, plus 1.67ha for the school and grounds and local centre of 0.56ha, gives a net developable area of 21.12ha. This provides an average net development density of 28.4. dwellings per hectare (dph) this is an acceptable density, similar to that encouraged in Policy CS2 (b) 30-40minimum net density standard. The density across the site has been carefully considered throughout the process. The Parameters plan indicates adjacent to the strategic landscape strip along the eastern boundary that bounds the open countryside the housing density is lowest at 20 DPH. The density increases away from there to 23-25 DPH and next to the new Glebe Road development site. The highest density is around the local centre and along the secondary road through the site with a density of 30-35 DPH. The lowest density areas is likely to be detached family houses which are likely to generate a more broken form of development with gaps between buildings and visual relief towards the parkland.

6.44 In the original submission the buildings did not exceed four storeys, 4 storey buildings, were considered inappropriate on landscape grounds. With the submission of the EIA it was amended to 9-12metres for dwellings and 18metres for the local centre, which again was unacceptable and supported by The Landscape Partnerships assessment of the LVIA. The Addendum plans and LVIA addresses this specific point and amended the heights of the dwellings to a maximum of 9metres and with the Local centre and school being a maximum of 8metres and the sports hall to the school being a maximum height of 10metres. The proposed maximum heights of the buildings were particularly important given the existing skyline when viewed from the south and south-west and views from the Kettering Road south to the wider landscape as encourages in the Market Harborough Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Capacity study 2009.

6.45 The principles that underpin the Illustrative Composite Master plan are: • A landscape led residential development; • Provision of a new school positioned to serve this development and a wider catchment; • A new local centre associated with the new school site and readily accessible for all residents within the wider community; • Open spaces embracing the retained landscape features; • Built form and massing interspersed with landscape elements; • Surface water attenuation features embedded within the open spaces; built form • responding and working with the site features; • Built form responding to the range of uses on the site; • Retention of key skyline features and references; • Connectivity with the existing development pattern; and • Strong green connections that run throughout the site.

6.46 Taking the above into consideration, the development structure across the site follows the contours of the topography, this is considered a good strategy to ensure the development assimilates in to the landscape, this approach is also encouraged in the Market Harborough Landscape character assessment and Landscape Capacity Study (2009). The reports mitigation measures state that the building height should be 2 storey with landscaping to be retained and re-inforced. This has been part of the revised overall strategy of the scheme. Its location next to other residential developments means it assimilates into the built form of the area. The Dwellings were proposed to be clustered in blocks fronting onto the road positioned to overlook the proposed on-site landscape features.

6.47 The site sections demonstrate how site levels can achieve a gradient of 5% 1:20 for the principal road in order to avoid stepped entrances and steep gardens, this is achieved by cut and fill exercise and level access to all dwellings. This gradient (max) is also acceptable to the County Highways Authority.

6.48 Paragraph 58 of The Framework states that decisions should aim to ensure that development creates a strong sense of place. The applicant has developed a Parkland vision for the site, whereby parkland is located throughout the development, in a linked hierarchy arrangement; to give the development a cohesive identity. The legibility of the site is enhanced by a hierarchy of roads signposted by key buildings. The 4 character areas help to define the function of each area.

◦ Character Areas and Design Code 6.49 The revised DAS divides the site into a series of character areas. Each area would be characterised by architectural detailing, variety of scale, urban grain (density), building form, heights and external facing materials. The Design Code indicates in

detail how each of the character areas could be developed to enable distinctive character areas. A condition is recommended to secure the overarching details (see condition 5).

• Knoll Court is to the north of the site and relates to the mixed use centre with ancillary uses (car park) along with an element of residential use and a higher density. It forms the main entrance to the development and vista of the development from Kettering Road. This area will draw on the local Market Harborough town centre architectural characteristics.

• Jordan is located directly to the south of Knoll Court, it is a key link to Davenport and Nethercote. Its central location means it can create a more distinct identity, the area will have a tighter grain drawing on the town centre character in a contemporary way.

• Davenport Park to the west side of the north-south hedgerow it draws on the formal and urban character of existing built form found within the town and close-by.

• Nethercote Park is the eastern side of the north-south hedgerow, and creates a natural transition between the existing urban environment and the open countryside. It incorporates a significant element of landscape buffer to the adjoining countryside with a looser urban grain.

6.50 The proposed character areas are welcome as they will provide variety within the development which will aid legibility. In addition, the new buildings will reflect the character of the town centre and surrounding residential development by using local colour, form, materials, and architectural detailing and be sympathetic to the adjacent rural countryside

Connectivity: 6.51 Overstone Park will be connected to the Overstone House development through the eastern and two southern connections with full vehicular connection including pedestrian and cyclist. Furthermore there is a footpath link via the proposed Overstone House public open spaces. In addition, there is a cyclist/pedestrian and emergency services connection under the railway line to Braybrooke Road. Provision has been made from Overtone Park footway network to join the Glebe Road open space at the boundary. Across the site there are leisure routes round the site and along existing landscape features to connect the local centre and school with LEAP’s and NEAP’s. Jordan Park provides a pedestrian link to the local centre.

6.52 A street hierarchy has been established across the site. The primary street is the top road from the new access on the Kettering Road through to the Overstone House development which then links back onto the Kettering Road. This provides access to the local centre and school and allows buses to travel along the route. This then links to the secondary road, which is a central looped distributor road designed to link all parts of the development and up to the back of the Overstone House development. Tertiary streets and Lanes would stem from the secondary road.

6.53 The desire lines primarily follow retained natural features, and link the underpass, Parks to the local centre and school. a) Braybrooke Road underpass via Foxton Park through the linear open space Jordan park to the local centre; b) Davenport Park northwards along the existing line of retained Oak trees to the south-western access into Overtone House.

c) Tayler and Foxton Park are connected via green corridor (swale) and leisure route and provide a route up-to the local centre.

Open Space and Green Infrastructure: 6.54 Landscaping is a reserved matter. However, the design concept for the site showing a wide range of open space, green infrastructure and areas for play have been proposed alongside the proposed development. The site generates a requirement for a total of just under 5ha of open space. The illustrative masterplan indicates 11.45ha of parkland and open space, this is well in excess of the requirements, however, comes about due to its location on the edge of the settlement and soil conditions requiring large scale SuDs. This is welcomed to provide screening from sensitive views and provide habitat for wildlife. SuD’s areas can count towards Natural and semi-natural greenspace.

6.55 The proposed masterplan demonstrates what the key landscape and parkland principles are: • Retain and enhance the north, east and south boundaries; • Provide new areas of green amenity space within the development; • Retain and enhance the existing linear hedgerow and trees; • Plant strategic tree and shrub planting within the scheme to re-inforce the character and define various areas of green spaces. • Provide generous screening/natural attraction in and around the site; • Include areas of formal and informal play; • Accommodate pedestrian routes; • Be a destination for families and local residents and a valuable asset to the new local community; • Provide a mix of sustainable urban drainage systems (irregular ponds); • Benefits offered to habitat creation and diversity within residential areas; and • Improving permeability of site from surrounding area.

6.56 The parkland areas are a key part of the overall design concept of the site; they also accommodate pedestrian routes to provide linkages through the site. There are 7 areas of parkland: 1. The Knoll the north-west corner of the site, small elevated mound. 2. Nethercote Park along the eastern boundary of the site, where the existing hedgerow and trees are to be retained and re-inforced with strategic tree and shrub planting. 3. Jordan Park running north-south along the line of the existing hedgerow and separates the two character areas. 4. Davenport Park and 5. Foxton Park runs along the southern boundary and contain a number of attenuation ponds within the green amenity space and two LEAP’s. 6.Shrewsbury Park adjacent to the Overstone House development contains an existing attenuation pond and NEAP. 7. Tayler Park runs east-west half way down the site and includes attenuation ponds.

6.57 Each of the spaces are detailed further (key features and planting) in the Design Code section 8. These strategic open space areas will require further detailed landscaping and planting schemes, in line with the Public Open space strategy in the Design Code, which will come forward as part of the reserved matters applications. The secondary loop road is designed as a tree lined Avenue. This strategic landscape feature needed to work on the ground to be an effective landscape feature in the long term. Given the levels differences between the road and development areas at the upper section, the verges will need to be very wide to accommodate mature trees on a gently sloping verge. The Design Code suggests a verge width of 2-10metres in order to deal with the issue. This feature will be conditioned separately

(see condition 30) To ensure the landscaping is appropriately managed and maintained, a condition seeking the submission off a Landscape Management plan is recommended, (see Condition 18).

6.58 The Sustainable Drainage Strategy includes attention ponds, swales, green roofs and ditches. It is important to consider their use, function and appearance during wet and dry periods. A detailed surface water drainage strategy has been devised. Swales are designed as an open ditch system that are attractive to view, are part of the landscape strategy and transport water flow at times of rainfall to the detention ponds. It is not intended that they are crossed by roads, roads near the feature will be cul-de-sacs. Swales provide semi-aquatic habitat, that will have additional biodiversity benefits. Basins are shallow depressions capable of holding the required amount of water, the sides have a gradient of 1:4 or 1:5 this enable grass to establish and for them to be used for informal recreation in dry conditions. They appear as a grassy features, however the south-eastern SuDs feature will be a greater depth to allow water to be retained, this allows for another type of habitat enhancement, it will be fenced for safety reasons.

Local Centre: 6.59 An essential part of a sustainable community is to have a local centre that acts as a focal point for the community. The Agent adds that a local centre was put forward to ensure Overstone Park was not just a residential suburb, but had a sense of place, with a focal point (landscaped plaza) and accessible location for shops and services. The Cores principles in The Framework states that decision making should ‘take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local need’.

6.60 The proposed development will include a local centre (0.55ha) which could, subject to demand, include a mixture of community uses D1 (community centre; medical use- dentist/GP; and private nursery 6months to 3-4 years) and small scale retail units A1, A2 and A3 (small supermarket; newsagents; and café) with the potential to provide day to day shopping needs, goods and services close to where the new community will live and reduce the need to travel by car whilst not competing with Market Harborough Town centre.

6.61 The viability of a local centre is an important issue, this has been addressed in the production of a Market report (Berry’s dated October 2017). This report assessed market conditions and the local community. It advised that convenience stores are on the rise, as customers are making fewer large weekly shopping trips and more top-up shopping this has resulted in more investment in local centres. The customers drive for convenience has lead to retail property investment to be in predominantly smaller format stores often found in local centres. Also operators believe it is the key to boosting diminishing returns. Major scheme at Airfield farm and Farndon Fields provides local centres which will satisfy local demand and will not be detrimental to each other.

6.62 In terms of the reports assessment on Dental surgeries, there are 7 (private and public) within Market Harborough. Only 2 responded to the consultants question on ‘future requirements’ and both had no plans to expand, this implies that the town has sufficient capacity within existing operators. However, the consultants did expect that private operators in specialist health care services would be attracted to the scheme. Nursery and pre-school education sector has changed significantly in the last 15 years with operators requiring modern good quality buildings rather than poorer quality former public sector buildings or redundant industrial units. Most of the

nursery/pre-school providers were full to capacity and foresee demand for further services in the future. Therefore there would be demand for new high quality nursery and pre-school provision on site. It was also considered that the local centre could offer a wide range of D1 facilities within one building similar to Archway Health Centre on Lubenham Hill and 1st and 2nd floor accommodation in the town centre.

6.63 The report concludes that a local centre centred on a small convenience store, would be sustainable and fully let on or near to its completion. The Local Centres provision is achieved by inclusion within the Section 106 agreement, the marketing and delivery details will be determined at that stage.

6.64 The Community hall as per Community Facilities request is to be provided on-site. The remaining retail uses are proposed to cover c.650sq.m. of floor space. Conditions are recommended (see Conditions 33, 36 and 37) in relation to opening hours, delivery hours to protect existing and future residential amenity and retail floor area.

6.65 The Local centre has been located in an accessible location in terms of walking distance of future residents and close to the main road into the site thereby offering a choice of ways to travel to the facility. Likewise, the school is positioned at the northern end of the site adjacent to Kettering Road so it can serve the new development and the wider catchment area, the site is easily accessed and it has a close relationship with the local centre. Land has also been reserved within the proposed development to construct a 2 form entry school. The applicant will provide a financial contribution towards its construction.

6.66 Design details relating to the local centre and primary school will be provided at reserved matters stage. However from the revised Parameter plans the school is likely to be single/two storey max. height of 8metres with sports centre being max. height of 10metres and the local centre would be a landmark building at a maximum height of 8metres single or two storey.

Renewable Energy: 6.67 The new homes will be designed to improve energy efficiency i.e. highly insulated external walls; energy efficient boilers; insulted pipework; argon filled double glazed windows; including water conservation i.e. low flow taps, dual flush toilets. However, these are internal fixtures and fittings outside planning control.

Car parking: 6.68 Parking is a fundamental component of the design of a development and achieving the correct parking response is integral to the character and functionality of streets. However, the housing mix is unknown at this time; therefore it is not possible to confirm the numbers and location of the car parking to be provided at the development. However, the DAS advises that car parking would be provided in accordance with parking standards at the time, which has recently changed to Leicestershire Design Guide which currently are: • 4 or more bedrooms – 3 parking spaces; and • 3 or less bedrooms – 2 parking spaces.

Other Design matters:

6.69 The Design and Access statement outlines how the scheme can provide safe sustainable development:

• adoption of perimeter block arrangements of buildings with dwellings facing the public realm. Generally rear gardens are arranged in a back to back layout to create active street frontages; • Clustering small groups of houses creating a sense of community; • provision of a local centre near the school; • establishing clear pedestrian routes along active streets through the built up areas; • provision of well connected footpath routes; • Providing on-plot cycle and vehicular parking adjacent to dwellings; • providing views of residents vehicles; • low level shrub planting that maintains opportunities for passive surveillance; • using boundary treatment to convey a sense of security; • corner dwellings that have dual aspect windows to habitable rooms to maximise opportunities for passive surveillance; • Secured by Design principles implemented throughout development.

6.70 Matters relating to levels, refuse and recycling facilities, cycle storage within the curtilage of dwellings; extraction / ventilation equipment (e.g. local centre) and external lighting can all be controlled by way of condition (see conditions 15).

6.71 The development has been programmed over a 10 year period and will come forward in 4 phases. The indicative phasing plan shows the first phase includes the school, local centre, strategic landscaping and SuDs and some housing, phase 1a is housing at the top of the site, the third phase is the western section of the application site and the fourth phase is the south-eastern corner of the site.

3. Residential Amenity 6.72 Core Principle 4 of the Framework seeks to ensure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings and this is reflected in CS Policy 11. Notwithstanding the fact that layout, scale and external appearance of the proposed development is a reserved matter, from the information provided it is possible to provide general observations on whether or not the amenity of existing residential areas located adjacent to the proposal will be affected.

6.73 There are no neighbours to the southern and eastern boundaries of the site. To the western boundary is the Redrow Glebe Road housing development. There is the side and rear elevation to houses adjoining the application site. Subsequent reserved matters applications will ensure that Council separation distances can be achieved.

6.74To the northern boundary are the long rear gardens to properties on The Heights, Windy Ridge on Shrewsbury Avenue plus the new dwellings at Overstone House development. It is considered that due to the long rear gardens of dwellings at The Heights any new dwellings or road along the boundary will not adversely affect resident’s amenity. Windy Ridge on Shrewsbury Avenue and the new development on Overstone House development site have shorter rear gardens. However, again the details of the relationship of new dwellings and roads with the existing residential dwellings can be assessed at reserved matters stage. The careful siting of dwellings and additional landscaping can help mitigate the impact and if outline approval is given reserved matters retains control over the final design.

6.75 During construction there would be some adverse impacts upon residential amenity. However, a construction method statement (see condition 29), as suggested by the Environmental Health officer would contain good practise measures to limit the disturbance and inconvenience that may arise when buildings works are undertaken. The development is not considered to be harmful in overall terms to residential

amenity and therefore it is in accordance with Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy. However, those who would be affected would have the opportunity to make representations on the details when they are submitted at reserved matters stage.

4. Highways 6.76 The ES includes a chapter on Transport (Chapter 8) which was informed by Transport Assessment (TA) and a travel plan (TP) both undertaken by Milestone Transport Planning. There have been several versions of the TA in response to comments provided and subsequent discussions with both the County Highways Authorities of Leicestershire (LCHA) and Northamptonshire (NCHA).

6.77 Section 4 of the NPPF relates to sustainable transport, para. 34 states that decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised. Paragraph 38 of The framework states that for large scale residential developments policies should promote a mix of uses to provide opportunities to undertake day to day activities. Policy CS5 of the Cores Strategy on sustainable transport, encourages future development to be well serviced by local services, provide a coordinated delivery of transport improvements, with mitigation works that should be geared to transport improvements that are strategically beneficial, and safe pedestrian and cycling facilities.

6.78 The existing highway network:

• Kettering Road is subject to national speed limit until Shrewsbury Avenue, then 40mph before changing again to 30mph. • A6 junction with Kettering Road bans right turns into the Kettering Road from eastbound A6, therefore traffic that wants to travel to Kettering Road and Northampton Road travels towards the town centre via A4304 Rockingham Road and along Gores Lane or Ashley Way. To enable safe shelter for traffic turning right out of Kettering Road, the A6 narrows for southbound traffic from two lanes to one then back to two lanes after the junction. • Kettering Road was historically the A6, when the bypass was constructed the road was downgraded to C class road. Due to this the highway retains its original characteristics of 10m carriageway with wide verges for the majority of the length. • The site frontage to Kettering Road has a wide grass verge but no footway or street lighting. There is a footway along Kettering Road on both sides. • At regular intervals along the Kettering Road are pedestrian crossing points. • The Kettering Road narrows under the railway line to a single lane (give way). • Bus route 33 (Market Harborough town circular) frequency of 1p/hr runs close to the site along Ashley Way. • Bus route X43/43 (Regional bus route) Kettering-Rothwell-Desborough-MH) frequency 1 p/hr runs along Braybrooke Road.

6.79 Access details are to be determined at outline stage. In summary the proposed off- site highway alterations are:

• Access to the site is proposed at 2 points: 1. a four-arm roundabout (including the private track to proposed National Grid substation) on the Kettering Road at the north eastern corner of the site is the principal access point to the site. The road open to all vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians links up with Overtone House development and also provides access to the local centre and school. (see Condition 6)The access route allows for 2 way bus movement;

2. via the Overstone House development off the Kettering Road. The junction has a right hand turning land contained within the existing hatched central reservation of the Kettering Road. Within the site there are three roads (two on the southern and one on the eastern boundary) with access for all vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians to the application site, the east/west road, providing bus access.

• A new roundabout on the A6. [Traffic lights (3 way) on A6 were previously proposed however, after lengthy discussions, the junction was changed to a roundabout.] The re-introduction of all movement on the A6, this proposal would re-introduce right turns into the Kettering Road. This would allow vehicles movements to the site from the north, north-east to take a direct route via Kettering Road and not require movements via the local roads including Rockingham Way, Ashley Road and Gores Lane (see Condition 8).

• Extend and Up-grade the existing footpath, which is also a recorded cycle route to a pedestrian/cycle route (min. 3m wide) from the application site to the southern kerb line of the Kettering Road, between the site and the existing cycle network infrastructure on the approach to the rail bridge, along Kettering Road there would be suitable crossing facilities provided over the junctions of Shrewsbury Avenue, Glebe Road and Bellfield Lane (see Condition 9).

• Pedestrian, cyclist and emergency vehicle access under the railway line to Braybrooke Road.

• Extension of the existing urban speed limits to coincide with the site access i.e. 40mph/30mph.

• Improvements to the Kettering Road junction with the Midland Main Railway Line (see Condition 10). Also other junction improvements within Market Harborough town centre as part of the Market Harborough Transport Strategy.

• Additional bus stops (43/X43) are proposed in each direction on the Braybrooke Road close to the proposed pedestrian link from the site to Braybrooke Road.

• An extension to the current bus route 33 from Ashley Way is proposed with a bus stop at the school and local centre. The bus route would be via the proposed roundabout through the site spine road and linking with the road through the Overtone House development, which has been specifically constructed to accommodate buses. Also an increase in bus frequency by the provision of an additional vehicle on the amended route would allow the hourly service to be increased to a half hourly service. (April 2018 media reports about future running of the 33 bus route are not a reason to refuse consent for this proposal and in any event relate to a consultation.)

• Parking within the site will be provided at a level to comply with the Highway Requirement for Development (HRfD). Cycle parking will be provided for the housing (garage or shed), local centre and school.

• Refuse Collection, Deliveries and Emergency vehicles, will use all available road space within the development to turn and manoeuvre, to comply with British Standards and other regulations.

• A travel plan has also been submitted, outlining the sustainable travel initiatives such as; travel Information pack, community website, walking, cycling and public

transport initiatives, membership of a car share scheme, travel plan co-ordinator, to ensure the plan is implemented, monitored and reviewed.

6.80 Traffic surveys were undertaken 15-21st July 2015; this was in the school holidays which wasn’t acceptable. The Highways Officers also had a number of other concerns with the original transport assessment. These issues were addressed by the consultants within the EIA submission. The County Highways Officer after lengthy consideration and further detailed technical discussions had no objection to the scheme subject to conditions relating to completion of the A6/Kettering Road access arrangement, completion of the secondary link road, completion of the site access junction, implementation of highway works where the Kettering Road passes under the railway line, full travel plan, construction traffic management plan.

6.81 The County Highways Authority observations are summarised as follows; (full explanation please see appendix A). The adjacent site has an acceptable S38 layout (Sept. 2017) which incorporates a suitable geometric layout i.e. to allow buses, to serve a second access for the application site. This was also dealt with by planning permission ref: 15/01700/FUL Alterations to widen carriageway (ref 14/00623/FUL) Approved. It is essential that the development of this scale is satisfactory served by two access points to allow greater flexibility and resilience should one access become blocked.

6.82 In terms of the site access vertical alignment was an important consideration due to the gradient on Kettering Road. The technical information provided satisfied the County Highways Officer that the principle of an access at that point can be achieved.

6.83 In 2012, due to a history of collisions at the A6/Kettering Road junction, the County Council undertook Accident Investigation Analysis, following on from this work, the County Council implemented a number of physical measures to address the conflicts i.e. no right turn off the A6 onto Kettering Road. More recent analysis undertaken by the County Council has identified a degree of increased driver frustration as a result of approximate 4km diversion for right-turners onto Kettering Road and increased rat- running as a result of drivers rerouting via Ashley Road and Gores Lane to bypass the junction in its entirety. There is evidence of vehicles performing prohibited U-turns at this junction, which is not considered to be in the interests of highway safety. The roundabout design at the junction re-introduces the right turn, the technical information confirmed it can perform and function satisfactorily.

6.84 The creation of a pedestrian link from the site to the Braybrooke Road provides a level of permeability into the site, however due to a number of technical constraints a detailed pedestrian/cycle audit is required.

6.85 For pedestrians the application site is within 2 km of the railway station and town centre. There are no facilities identified within 800m radius of the site (reasonable walking distance). The nearest bus stop is 550m from the application site on the Kettering Road, LCC advice 400metre walking distance to a bus stop. On the Kettering Road Route 33 there is 1 per/hr, 7 days (daytime) into Market Harborough. Approximately 1.1km to the west on the Braybrooke Road are further bus stops served by Route X43 and 43, 1 per/hr 7 days (day and night) Northampton to Kettering. The bus station at Market Hall is 1.7km away provides access to additional services and can be accessed by all services operating in the vicinity of the site. The applicant has engaged with the commercial bus operators to extend the bus service to serve the development site. (Route 33) As a minimum requirement the Highways Officer requires a service provision of 30minute service at peak and

60mins at off-peak from 0700-1900, also a contribution is required to guarantee a service for 5years. Extra bus stops are proposed at the local centre and on the Braybrooke Road, therefore making the site more accessible to sustainable modes of transport. This will be achieved by legal agreement.

6.86 The D&AS shows a road hierarchy; primary road is to the top loop road from the roundabout past the local centre, school and into Overstone House development. There is then Secondary Street (Avenue) that loops into the site and out at the southern road in the Overstone House development, both these road are proposed to be tree lined. Then there are Tertiary streets which connect the secondary streets to all the development parcels, Lanes and park edge shared roads/drives. The internal road gradients are also proposed to be within advised highway guidelines of 5% or 1:20

6.87 The Kettering Road rail bridge is a substandard rail overbridge which causes narrowing of the carriageway and a reduction in forward visibility for drivers, leading to delays and congestion. This has the potential to impact other local nearby junctions as vehicles block-back. The transport data concluded that the impact of development traffic on an already overloaded situation. A signalised solution has been tested and the County Highways Officer considers this should be pursued to mitigate the development and better control traffic flow. Tis will be achieved by legal agreement.

6.88 There is also identified at the local road junction severe impact in year 2031 at A6/A6 Harborough Road/Rockingham Road junction (does not require specific capacity enhancement), Springfield Street/Kettering Road and Supermarket junction and Clarence Road/A4303 St. Mary’s Road/Kettering Road junction. Therefore junction improvements are required. The Market Harborough Transport Strategy identified areas where some level of investment can be considered to improve the performance of the network, which includes these junctions. This will be achieved by legal agreement (see Appendix B). The Market Harborough Transport Study also investigates the potential for the construction of a southern relief road linking the A6 and the A508. The indicative cost is between £35-45 million, this is considered prohibitive, as it will be crossing the River Jordan, the flood plain and railway line.

6.89 The Impact Assessment in the ES concludes that during the construction phase that associated traffic movements in respect of noise, intimidation of other road users, severance or disruption will be negligible and not significant. In terms of traffic generated during the operational phase it will have a minor adverse impact and is not significant on the limited number of highway links within the study area that are deemed to be sensitive, any impacts are mitigated by the implementation of a travel plan, provision/contribution of off-site highway improvements in the form of sustainable transport improvements and mitigation work at key junctions on the local highway network.

6.90 It should be noted that most of the objections received from the local community and the civic society concern traffic implications of a development of this scale. These concerns are fully appreciated and the CHA have considered all issues and concerns raised. That neither the Leicestershire County Highways Authority have objected to the proposed development carries significant weight in the planning balance. The proposal is consider to accord with Policy CS5 and CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

5. Noise

6.91 The ES includes a chapter on Noise and Vibration (Chapter 7) which has been informed by a detailed Environmental Noise and Vibration assessment undertaken by Ian Sharland Ltd.

6.92 Policy CS11 c) (iv) states that development should be well planned to ensure that the amenities of existing and future neighbouring occupiers are safeguarded. Section 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment of The Framework specifically para 123 states that decisions should aims to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development; and mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts upon health including the use of conditions.

6.93 The ES Impact Assessment overall approach is: • To review the existing noise a the site; • An assessment of the potential changes in noise and vibration arising from construction of the proposed development (Noise, vibration and traffic); • An assessment of the potential changes in noise arising from the operation of the proposed development (building services, school activities, traffic and railway line) on existing noise sensitive receptors and the residential element of the proposed development. • Formulation of mitigation measures where appropriate to ensure adverse effects are minimised.

6.94 Following the ES Impact Assessment, the effect of construction noise and vibration and operational noise from the railway line were judged to be Significant. Following mitigation measures of standard best practise measures (BS), Construction method Statement including hours of working, separation distance between vibration works and receptors of 20metre or more, design solutions such as layout of principle rooms and gardens away from the railway line and facade construction and ventilation works to the dwellings to provide suitable indoor noise levels. These mitigation measures results on the residual effects being Not Significant.

6.95 The detailed Noise and Vibration Assessment was undertaken for the Kettering Road, A6 and the railway line to the south, which requires an assessment of the existing ambient noise and vibration levels. The existing noise levels from road and rail were established. Surveys were undertaken in 2010 and 2015.

6.96 The NPPF Section 123 states that decisions should aim to ● avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse on health and quality of life as a result of new development; ● Mitigate and reduce to a minimum there adverse impacts upon health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions; ● recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes to nearby land uses since they were established; and ● identify and protect areas of tranquil which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational or amenity value.

6.97 The Parameters plan shows properties 50m from the southern and northern boundary would be subject to the highest noise levels across the site. For these properties a range of measures are required to ensure the outside noise levels reaches the target noise level. For example, by installing specialist level of glazing, wall (100mm brick or dense concrete block, medium density block or timber frame inner skin) and roof specifications (tiled roof with 200mm insulation and 25mm

plasterboard). When windows are open, mechanical ventilation may also be a solution, for example a whole house mechanical heat recovery unit. It is advised that further detailed analysis at reserved matters stage (see Condition 12). For all other facades they revert to the default specifications.

6.98 The report which deals with the worse case scenario, states that noise levels in external amenity spaces close to the railway line and Kettering Road are above ideal levels. However, this can be mitigated against with the careful layout of any scheme i.e. using the building to shield primary amenity spaces from the road or railway and use of acoustic screening, however, it would not be good planning to have high fencing adjacent to the southern stretch of open space and it is less effective where the ground level is at or above that of the road or railway.

6.99 Vibration levels of passenger and freight trains passing the site were measured and the report concluded that at worse, vibration from the railway line would result in a low probability of adverse comment from any prospective residential use.

6.100 The nearby Motorcross site (Kettering Borough Council) is a potential area of concern due to noise form the activity. This was investigated by the Applicant. On three visits to the site by a Director at Berry’s which included a Bank Holiday there was no activity. There is a locked gate at the track entrance, the track has greened over as it has not been used and there are no other access routes, therefore the applicant concluded it has ceased to function. Therefore it is not considered a noise issue.

6.101 The Environmental Health Officer assessed the information provided and following a revision to the report, he reported that the report is now clearer, more informative and robust. The Officer concludes that the scheme is acceptable on noise and vibration grounds subject to construction method statement and further noise assessments at reserved matters stage. Therefore the proposal accords with policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy and para. 123 of The Framework.

6. Ecology (Flora and Fauna) 6.102 The ES includes a chapter on ecology (Chapter 4) which has been informed by a detailed Ecological Appraisal undertaken by Belos Ecology (1st May 2017). Three different field surveys were carried out, an Extended Phase 1 habitat survey, a badger survey and a bat tree-climbing survey and a desk top study of Great Crested Newts.

6.103 Policy CS8 relates to Protecting and enhancing green infrastructure and part (d) relates to biodiversity. The Framework states that when determining applications, LPA’s should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Section 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment of The Framework states that LPA should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying certain principles: Development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be permitted; and opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged (para.118).

Statutory and non-Statutory designations 6.104 There are two national important sites within 5 km of the site Great Bowden Borrow (SSSI) 3.5km north of the site, and Stoke and Bowd Lane Woods (SSSI) 5km east of the site. There are no direct ecological linkages between the site and the SSSI, and the site is not within the SSSI impact risk zone, therefore it is considered there will be no adverse impacts on the statutory and non-statutory sites.

6.105 There are 2 District Wildlife sites (Pond-north of site and disused railway embankment) and 2 parish Wildlife sites (disused railway line and River Welland) within 2km of the site centre.

Flora 6.106 Habitats on the site reflect the largely agricultural use of the site, which is highly managed and has low ecological value. The site is defined by three fields, the field adjacent to Overstone House development is down to grass (species poor improved grassland) for sheep grazing, the south-western field and the eastern fields are down to crops. However, there are three noteworthy areas. The field boundary hedgerows which are species poor (predominantly hawthorn) farmland hedgerows, the pasture land (Kettering Road) and a 3m wide species poor semi-improved grassland at the southern field margin adjacent to the railway line.

6.107 The arable fields have been assessed as having negligible ecological value. The existing field hedgerows are also species poor. Hedgerows to the northern and eastern boundary are to be retained and strengthened, however a section of the northern boundary would be removed to accommodate the access road into the site. The north-south hedgerow running down the site will be lost due to the internal residential roads and top loop road to Overtone House. The hedgerow running west- east across the site will be lost to link the school building with the playing fields.

6.108 The Ecological survey points to a number of mitigation and enhancements measures. Hedgerows are listed as priority features within the UK Biodiversity Action Plan as such appropriate mitigation will be required as sections of the hedgerow are to be removed i.e. new species rich hedgerow located in areas that provide strong linkages between ecological features both on and off the site. A 1metre protection zone of retained hedgerows during construction is recommended (see Condition 19). The County Ecologist recommends a 5m buffer zone alongside retained hedgerows, this is provided by the strategic landscape buffer to the eastern boundary.

6.109 The site is not located within the conservation area. There is a TPO (Shrewsbury Av. & Kettering Road) 1971 immediately to the north of the site. The Willow (T18) Poplar (T20) and Ash (T24) are part of the TPO and of these the Poplar is a C category tree maybe affected by the proposal, the construction of a footpath, which can be constructed sympathetically.

6.110 The Arboricultural report (as revised) states that there are 26 individual trees and 12 groups of trees (on and off-site) potentially affected by the development proposals. One individual trees (Common Ash T5) is recommended to be removed for Arboricultural reasons. Of the remaining trees none will need to be removed due to the implementation of the development, most are category B and C trees as defined by Applicant’s tree schedule. There is a line of 4 English Oak trees (T13, T14, T15, T16) running north to south within one of the fields, these are to be retained and incorporated within open space areas. Some Arboricultural works are required to all the Oak trees. The access point into the application site does not affect any trees to be retained.

6.111 The Arboricultural report confirms that the construction of the proposed dwellings on the site can take place outside the canopy spreads and Root Protection Areas (RPA) of the retained trees. However, the introduction of footpaths, roads, boundary treatment and construction activity are shown to take place within RPA’s. The mitigation measures that can be introduced to deal with these concerns are that the construction of hard surfacing within root protection areas can be to a no-dig method this can be conditioned (see condition 31), although it is noted by the applicant that

ploughing near the trees will have had an impact upon the root system. Also tree protection fencing to control and restrict construction activity to protect the retained trees during site development can be a condition on any consent (See condition 19).

6.112 The County Arboricultural Officer has no objection to the scheme subject to a condition relating to British Standard to protect trees in relation to design, demolition and construction. The Officer recommended that houses should be sited outside RPA’s; consider shade cast by trees and its impact; location of large trees and buildings and the seasonal nuisance of shedding of leaves and debris onto amenity spaces and paths. All paths and roads should be outside the RPAs, or any acceptable encroachment constructed using a no-dig system. Care should be taken on the steeper slopes where paths/roads are indicated between trees – specifically T13-T16 – to ensure that any necessary excavation into the hillside (above the road) or infill embankments (below the road) necessary to attain the required surface levels are designed to avoid the RPAs and beyond.

6.113 The County Arboriculturalist also considered the four Oak trees are conspicuous large trees on the hillside aspect and visible from some distance, merit Tree Preservation Order status. The trees were provisionally TPO’d on 28th April 2016 (ref: 224) this was confirmed on 18th November 2016. The Parameter plan and Illustrative Composite Master plan show the Oak trees within their own open space areas, and in the Design Code a minimum 25metre open space buffer zone around the Oak trees is illustrated in a cross section. This is important due to the significance of the trees within the landscape, visibility of the tree in the long term, and the short, medium and long term health of the trees.

6.114 The subsequent submission at reserved matters stage of Landscape proposals will show long-term replacement/compensatory planting along routes across the site will retain connectivity across the site and improve the bio-diversity of the site. It is proposed to prepare an Arboricultural Method Statement at reserve matters stage to show how trees to be retained will be protected during and after the process (see Condition) .

Fauna 6.115 There is no evidence of bats on the site, however the hedgerow and areas of adjacent scrub vegetation along the southern boundary may provide suitable commuting and foraging routes for bats. A number of the trees within the site have a high potential to support roosting bats, two of these trees are to be felled, therefore should be checked by a licensed Ecologist prior to works. Mitigation measures such as sympathetic (directional low UV) lighting to reduce light spillage onto bat habitats and the introduction of bat boxes (see Condition 16) will assist the local bat population.

6.116 No evidence of other protected species were found on site, i.e. reptiles and amphibians (great crested newts) habitats. However, the site may support transient animals dispersing throughout the local landscape. Small populations of Great Crested Newts were identified less than 500metres from the site so potentially could be present.

6.117 Mitigation measures and licencing can mitigate against any impacts upon the reptile and nesting bird population, such as berry-rich native scrubs and trees, bird boxes (See condition 16). Mitigation measures for Great Crested Newts during construction phase are carried out under an EPS mitigation licence.

6.118 Badgers and their sett have been recorded in the area and are affected by the development. As mitigation it is recommend that a minimum of 30metres buffer zone between the sett and any development is created and maintained during the works and post-development management. The County Ecologist commented that provided that the final layout of the development is similar to that currently proposed, the badgers can be retained in-situ, with the SUDs feature and ‘parks’ to the south of the site providing both a buffer between the development and the sett and a corridor to prevent the badgers becoming trapped. The County Ecologist also recommended a badger mitigation plan condition (see Condition 16).

6.119 In the ES the potential impacts and likely effects on the ecological receptors are assessed during construction and operational periods. All receptors were assessed as overall effect ‘Not Significant’, except Great Crested Newts where there was a moderate negative effect which is ‘Significant’. With the implementation of the above mitigation measures and enhancement measures outlined below, the residual effect is negligible which is ‘Not Significant’.

6.120 The Ecology Survey explains broad habitat recommendations post development: ◦ creation of species rich grassland within the public amenity area and site margins; ◦ appropriate mowing regime that will optimise the ecological value of amenity areas; ◦ appropriate tree planting schedules throughout the site and amenity areas; ◦ lighting design to minimise impact upon wildlife; ◦ hedgerow management to benefit wildlife; and ◦ specification of ecological enhancements such as bird boxes, habitat piles;

6.121 The County Ecologist has no objection to the scheme, subject to conditions relating to locally native landscape planting, buffer zones to hedgerows, bio-diversity management plan, lighting details, bat/bird boxes, badger mitigation plan. Concern was raised with regard to the local Red kite population, however the County Ecologist does not consider this application to have a negative impact on the local population. The site comprises arable habitat and, whilst it is a fairly large development, it is only a small proportion of similar habitat within the immediate area. The habitat loss is unlikely to be significant to the local Red Kite population.

6.115 The County Ecologist explains there is a real opportunity for biodiversity enhancement on this site, as the proposed SUDs could be designed to be of biodiversity value as well as flood relief. The County Ecologist welcomed the buffer between the built development and the hedgerows. The ‘Parks’ should be designed to include areas of semi-natural open space, that includes meadow planting.

6.122 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed ecological mitigation measures, proposed landscape strategy (Design & Access Statement) and Parameters plan addresses para 118 of the Framework which seeks to conserve or enhance biodiversity and opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged .

7. Archaeology 6.123 The ES includes a chapter on Archaeology and built heritage (Chapter 10) which has been informed by a detailed Archaeological desk based assessment (dated 27th March 2015), Geophysical survey (10th December 2015), Archaeological Evaluation (dated 30th June 2016) and proposed Excavation plan.

6.124 Policy CS11 seeks to protect, conserve and enhance heritage assets, in particular, part d) iv) seeks to safeguard non-scheduled nationally important archaeological remains and other area of archaeological potential. Paragraph 135 of the framework

states that with regard to non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of the loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

6.125 The applicants have undertaken a Desk based assessment and Geophysical Survey. The desk based assessment stated that the site is situated on the slope of a clay ridge overlooking the River Jordan. Archaeological investigations to the west (Redrow site) have recorded evidence for an extensive Roman Enclosure system, and revealed during these excavations were a potential prehistoric pit alignment, isolated Anglo Saxon pits and medieval ridge and furrow. Traces of ridge and furrow were also recorded during trial trenching evaluation excavations for Phase 1 to the north.

6.126 The application site has remained as agricultural land from the medieval period until present day, and the northern edge, central field boundary and the line of oak trees (to be retained) that dissect the western field may represent historic (pre-enclosure) field boundaries. Previous ground disturbance is probably limited to that resulting from agricultural cultivation (ploughing) which adjacent excavations have demonstrated had a minimal impact. The proposed development therefore will have a significant, uniform impact on any archaeological remains, if present across the application site.

6.127 The Geophysical survey identified 11 possible enclosures, a high number of linear anomalies and a few positive point anomalies, which probably represent Roman or pre-historic pits and ditches.

6.128 The County Archaeologist initial response was that two assessments indicates the application site possess a significant archaeological potential, therefore trial trench evaluation of the site was recommended. Trial trenching was carried out in March 2016. The site works and subsequent Evaluation recorded three main areas: two principle enclosures or settlement areas in the northern area and a less prominent enclosure between the two. They were late Iron age and early Roman. The County Archaeologist following assessment of the trial trenching results, concluded no objection, subject to conditions relating to written scheme of investigation.

6.129 There are no listed buildings on the site or near it, the closest are in the village of Little Bowden. The Market Harborough Conservation area is the nearest, starting at St. Mary’s Road and Northampton Road nearest the town centre, some distance away.

6.130 The Impact assessment in the ES concluded that the development of the site will result in the destruction of all or most of the archaeological remains, resulting in a moderate/large to large adverse and Significant effect. In accordance with para.141 of the NPPF, further excavation will be required prior to and during construction on the site to allow preservation by record. This is achieved by Condition and the final mitigation brief is developed by the County Archaeologist (see Condition 23 and 24).

8. Flooding and Drainage 6.131 The ES includes a chapter on Water resources (Chapter12) which has been informed by a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) revised dated 10th May 2017, Preliminary Surface Water Drainage Strategy, SuDs maintenance plan and Utility Appraisal dated 1st December 2015.

6.132 Policy CS10 addressing flood risk, new Development will be directed towards areas at lowest risk of flooding within the district, with priority given to land within Flood

Zone 1, Surface water run-off will be managed to minimise the net increase in surface water discharge, Market Harborough is particularly sensitive, the use of Sustainable drainage systems will be expected. The Framework states (para 17) that planning should take full account of flood risk.

Flooding 6.133 The Environment Agency (EA) and FRA confirmed that the site is entirely within Flood Zone 1 as defined by the Environment Agency’s flood maps therefore at low risk of flooding from tidal (no risk) and fluvial sources. The FRA should set out framework proposals for the provision of a suitable Sustainable Drainage System (SuDs) scheme that would adequately manage surface water run off. The River Jordan is the nearest watercourse located 120m to the south of the site, the lowest spot on site (87mAOD) is at least 12m higher than the River Jordan, therefore there is no risk from fluvial sources.

6.134The FRA explains that the site is a greenfield and naturally drains via a number of overland flow routes into existing drainage ditches along existing field hedgerows that link into culverts under the railway line that lead to the River Jordan. Two prominent channels are at low to medium risk of flooding. There is also ponding along the southern boundary up to 900mm, this is away from and well below existing levels of development areas.

6.135 The Agent has confirmed that given local historical incidences of surface water flooding the site will be constructed sequentially so that run-off will be managed at each stage of the process by drainage constructed in advance. The Agent has also confirmed that no dwellings will be located within the overland flow routes, instead they will be designated to highway and SuDs features. Finished floor levels are to be set minimum of 150mm above the proposed access roads, with roads designed to route flows safely away from dwellings.

Surface water 6.136 The geology of the site (clay) means the site forms overland flows rather than the water draining naturally into the ground. The increases in impermeable area on the site may have the effect of increasing peak discharges from the site in a storm event. It is therefore necessary to limit the surface water peak discharge from the development to pre-development levels (greenfield run-off rate) to avoid an increased risk to downstream areas. To off-set this issue the applicant proposes to provide a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) via on-site attenuation ponds, swales, green roofs (school and commercial buildings) and tanked permeable paving, that drain into the River Jordan via the southern boundary ditch into 2 culverts in the far south-east corner of the site (as per the existing situation). The attenuation ponds have ecological and pollutant removal benefits and the out flow would be limited to the greenfield run-off rate, with a hydro-brake outlet control. The attenuation pond in the south-east corner will be permanently wet, the others are expected to be dry most of the year. The SuDS provided must have provision to contain 1 in 100 year storm event plus 40% climatic change allowance, which is a significant betterment to the existing situation. By providing attenuation there will be no additional surface water run off from the development.

6.137 Severn Trent (water supply) confirmed sufficient capacity is available within the existing infrastructure (piping on Kettering Road) and Anglian Water (surface and foul water) have no objection, subject to conditions relating to surface and foul water drainage strategies. The Environment Agency has no objection to the scheme. The Local Lead Flood Authority originally objected to the scheme on the basis that the FRA proposes a discharge rate above the greenfield discharge rate, when it should

be equivalent, and it required clarification on the storage estimate process. Following the submission of a revised FRA with the EIA, the Lead Local Flood Authority has no objection to the scheme, subject to a number of conditions (see Condition 25) relating to surface water drainage scheme and finished floor levels, construction surface water management, SuDs maintenance plan and schedule and Infiltration testing.

Foul Water 6.138 Foul drainage will be pumped into the local sewer network on the Kettering Road. Pumping Station(s) would be required on site, and would be adopted by the Water Authority, so would need to be constructed to their standards. Anglian Water has confirmed that sufficient foul capacity is available to serve the proposed development based on restricted flow of 3.8l/s. and submission of a foul water drainage strategy (see Condition 26).

6.139 The ES Impact Assessment states that the most significant risk from the development relates to the potential for un-controlled water and sediment runoff from the site during the construction phases. This is addressed by putting in place controls on the construction of temporary or permanent detention basins to manage surface water run-off rates and sedimentation so that these are developed sequentially, and in advance of the construction of each development phase. The proposed development with mitigation measures of a SUDs drainage strategy, so that there is no change to the existing greenfield run-off rates during the operation phases and other measures as above during the construction phase will have a minor to negligible residual effect (after mitigation), which is Not significant on both flood risk, the ecological status of the River Jordan and downstream River Welland.

9. Agricultural land 6.140 The ES includes a chapter (Chapter 11) on the Geology and soils with detailed analysis contained within the Agricultural land Classification report (Dec 2013). The Framework explains that Authorities should take account grade of agricultural land, due to amongst other things its economic benefit.

6.141 The site is down to arable cropping and has been wheat and oil seed rape. Para. 112 of The Framework states “Local Planning Authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Annex 2 of The Framework classifies best and most versatile agricultural land as Grades1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC). The (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) mapping confirms the application site land as Grade 3, but does not sub-classify into 3a or 3b. Further detailed analysis is required to determine the sub-category. Soil classification is determined by a number of factors; climate, site relief, flood risk, soil classification Hydrology, ground movement potential, natural soil fertility, expected cropping and land use.

6.142 Much of the site hydrogeological rock type is clay coming from the Jurassic and Cretaceous clay parent material. All the land is slowly permeable which presents seasonal water logging and low storage capacity.

6.143 The report examines the Grade 3 classification in more detail and reports that the sites limiting factors are the quality of the soil, minimal window for working the soil and the increased cost to maintain an average yield. These issues have a limiting factor on the productivity of the soil and the range of cropping available. The most limiting factor is a combination of the lack of variety of cropping due to the soils susceptibility to seasonal drought and water-logging, this fundamentally limits modern farming. Its is therefore concluded that the land is Grade 3b under the Agricultural

classification and as such does not come under the category of best and most versatile agricultural land.

6.144 The ES Impact assessment concludes that the development will result in a low adverse and Insignificant effect.

10. Contamination and Air Quality 6.145 The ES includes a Chapter (Chapter 11) on Ground Investigation which is informed by a Desk Study Report (Dec. 2015) to determine whether the ground conditions are suitable for construction and whether any contamination present from historic uses could cause adverse impact during construction or to future residents and users of the site.

6.146 The Framework (para 120/121) states that decisions should take into account ground conditions.

6.147 The potential site conditions (agricultural use, nearby historic landfill site, drainage ditch, historic ponds on the site, radon protection measures and geology) provide a low to medium environmental risk and hence further basic investigation and assessment is required to support the proposed re-development which could be undertaken post outline planning permission. The Contamination Land and Air Quality officer has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions requiring a Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment and Verification report. See conditions 27 and 28).

6.148 The ES Impact assessment concludes for contamination that the development at construction and operational phase is very low with negligible effect that is classed as Not Significant.

6.149 Air Quality is addressed in Chapter 6 of the ES, the results are informed by national and local data and mapping and Dispersion Model (Redmore Environmental Limited). The assessment reviews existing air quality, assessment of potential changes in air quality from construction and operational phases of the proposed development and formulation of mitigation measures. Dust and road traffic emissions were reviewed and sensitive receptors identified. During the construction phase there is the potential for air quality impacts as a result of dust emissions from the site, assuming good practise dust control measures are implemented the residual significance is Not Significant. During the operational phase of the development, potential impacts may occur due to road traffic exhaust emissions. However, the effects are found to be negligible and Not significant. Under the EIA regulations it was concluded that no significant effects were found for air quality during construction and operation phases.

11. Socio-Economic 6.150 Socio-Economic issues are addressed in Chapter 9 of the ES, the results are informed by national, regional and local data contained in Appendix G1 in the technical Appendices. Socio-Economic issues are defined as population, demographics and migration; deprivation, crime, health, education; economic growth; employment; retail; leisure; and travel to work/car ownership. No significant socio- economic effects are anticipated on the socio-economic receptors during the construction phase, except economic growth and employment. A range of short and long term positive effects with an increase in employment opportunities (direct and indirect) would occur in the local and district area. In terms of the operational phases there are significant positive effects for the population, economic growth and employment, housing (affordable housing) and image receptors. Due to the positive effect no mitigation measures are required for the social economic aspect.

12. Affordable Housing 6.151 There is a significant need for affordable housing in the district as identified in the HEDNA. The HEDNA indicates that 202 affordable dwellings are required each year in the District up to 2031 to reflect future housing need.

6.152 Policy CS3 of the CS states that the council will seek 30% of new dwellings to be provided as affordable. The Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) shows that for the period 2011 and 2036 that the main need is for homes with one or two bedroom, in Table 57 outlines the suggested mix of affordable housing of 35-40% 1 bedroom, 30-35% 2 bedroom, 25% three bedroom and 5-10% 4+ bedrooms.

6.153 On a development of this scale that should equate to 180 units. The applicant has indicated this will be provided on site, and integrated throughout the development. Bungalows are accepted on a 2 for 1 basis. At the present time the Strategic housing Officer has advised that 60% affordable rent and 40% Intermediate housing including shared ownership, equality loans and low cost housing.

6.154 The section 106 Agreement will control the distribution and delivery arrangements of the affordable housing.

13. Other issues

6.155 The Utilities Appraisal has provided the following additional information. All major utility supplies are located within the roads surrounding development site. The National Grid (Gas) confirms that there is sufficient capacity available within the existing infrastructure. Upgrade and alterations works will be required for BT and Virgin Media which can be confirmed at detailed design stage. Western Power Distribution have an overhead 233kv cable across the site, they have agreed with the Agent to bury the cable, with a wooden pole so the cable can then go above the railway line (condition).

6.156 A viability report was submitted, in order to determine the Gross Development value comparisons were made with other development sites in the area, and the residential element was based on dwelling type. Costs were deducted for S106 obligations, legal professional and marketing fees, and lower range of build costs. This produces a residual land value. The lower range build costs taken is not considered appropriate for this site. This is then compared with the site value benchmark, this was taken from Aspinall Verdi’s report prepared in August 2017 for HDC to provide economic viability advice in respect of the preparation of the new Local Plan. The viability assessment concluded that the proposed development would generate a deficit compared to the Site Value Benchmark and therefore would not be considered viable. However, the Agents considers that a drop in normal profit return of 20% to 19% (blended return) means that the developer should be able to proceed with the development including the proposed level of affordable housing by accepting a marginally lower profit level. This slightly lower profit margin is known to be acceptable to Planning Inspectors.

6.157 The Overhead power line that runs north-south across the site, due to its location and the location of the proposed school, should be buried. This has been explored by the applicant with Western Power Distribution. There response was that Western Power Distribution were happy to work with the landowner/developer to underground the majority of the existing overhead line. (see Condition 38). There would need to be a 4metre easement where planting would be acceptable.

d) Sustainable Development 6.158 The Framework identifies three dimensions to sustainable development – economic, social and environmental. Taking each of these in turn the following conclusions can be reached. ● Economic: new construction brings employment, provision of facilities would also support economic growth and community infrastructure, no loss of high quality agricultural land or employment land, improvements to the Harborough road network and public transport provision. ● Social: the site is in an accessible location, provision of bus route and local centre that would meet the local needs, health and well-being of the expanding local community, provision of a significant level of market and affordable housing which contributes to local housing need. ● Environmental: The site is not subject to a national or local landscape, ecological or heritage designation and is not in an area at risk from flooding. Medium to high capacity for development and Moderate/Low sensitivity to development. The proposal due to its design and mitigating factors is not considered to demonstrably harm the character and appearance of the countryside. e) Planning Obligations

6.159 Planning Obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) commonly known as S106 agreements, are a mechanism for securing benefits to mitigate against the impacts of development. These benefits can compromise, for example, of monetary contributions, the provision of affordable housing, on-site public open space/play area and other works or benefits that meet the three legal tests as outlined with Regulation 122: • Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; • Directly related to the development; • Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

6.160 These legal tests are also set out as policy tests in para. 204 of The Framework. Policy CS12 provided that new development will be required to provide the necessary infrastructure which will arise as a result of the proposal. More detailed guidance is set out in The Planning Obligations Developer Guidance Note, 2009 and the Leicestershire Developer Obligations Policy, Dec 2014.

6.161 Appendix B identifies the developer contributions sought by consultees, an assessment as to whether the requests are CIL compliant and a suggested trigger point to advise when the contribution should be made. The case officer concludes that all requests are CIL compliant.

7. The Planning Balance / Conclusion 7.1 The site is in open countryside adjacent to the existing settlement of Market Harborough. The District Authority currently has a shortfall in the supply of deliverable housing land which adds substantial material weight in favour of this proposal. The site is considered sustainable in terms of access to local services and facilities.

7.2 The conclusions of the 2009 Landscape capacity study, that the site is moderate to low landscape sensitivity to development and a moderate to high capacity for development, plus the comprehensive approach of the scheme in addressing mitigation measures to limit landscape and visual impacts of a large scale residential scheme, has lead to positive conclusions. Whilst there is some landscape harm and

countryside development, in conflict with Core strategy CS17, that harm is generally identified as moderate, other than in some views where it is major. The harm does not significantly and demonstrably outweigh proposal benefits including delivery of housing and affordable housing. Core Strategy policy CS2, whilst not up to date nevertheless allows for development outside limits to development when there is not a 5 year housing land supply.

7.3 The proposal does not adversely affect residential amenity, archaeology, agricultural land, land contamination and ecology issues.

7.4 The Oak trees on site were protected by a Tree Preservation Order and they are adequately protected by being in their own open space as indicated within the Indicative Composite Master plan.

7.5 Drainage and flooding issues have been comprehensively assessed and designed via Sustainable Drainage scheme of detention ponds, swales and green roofs. The details of which are acceptable to the Local Lead Flood Authority and Environment Agency.

7.6 The school and local centre are carefully located so easily accessible for all. The provision of uses within the local centre and the school have been justified by a market report and the County Council Education Authority.

7.7 The provision of a roundabout on the A6/Kettering Road and formation of an access off the Kettering Road by means of a roundabout and sloping access road into the site for all vehicles, with an alternative access point from the Overstone House residential estate is acceptable on highway grounds, subject to conditions, further off- site works and contributions.

7.8 The proposal overall including the mitigating measures is therefore considered in accordance with policies CS2, CS3, CS5, CS8, CS9, CS10 and CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy and Sections 4, 6, 7, 8 10, and 11 of The Framework.

7.9 In reaching this recommendation, Officers has taken into account the ES which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations and Addendum. Officers consider that the ES and the further information provided complies with the above regulations and that sufficient information has been provided to assess the environmental impact of the proposals.

8. Conditions

Commencement: 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

REASON: To accord with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Approval of certain reserved matters

2. No development shall commence on site until details of the following matters (in respect of which approval is expressly reserved) have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority: (a) The scale of the development; (b) The layout of the development; (c) The external appearance of the development; (d) The landscaping of the site;

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: The application was made for outline planning permission and is granted to accord with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Part 2 (5) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010.

Reserved Matters to be submitted 3. An applications for the approval of all of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON: To accord with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Parameters/documents 4. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the principles of the following plans and documents: • Parameters plan 13064 (b) 111 Rev K • Illustrative phasing plan (plan ref: 13064 (B) 123 Rev A) • Illustrative Composite masterplan plan ref: 13064 (b) 115 Rev E • Preliminary Surface Water Drainage Strategy S82211-SK-007 Rev B • Section plans 13064 (b) 117 Rev A and 13064 (b) 116 Rev A • Existing Vegetation to be retained OP1018-D14 • Tree Plan TP/LOPKRMHL/010 B

REASON: To ensure the scheme is developed in a broadly compatible approach with the details submitted as part of the proposal.

Design Code 5. Concurrent with each reserved matters application, a statement explaining how the proposal meets the Design Code. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the statement and Design Code.

REASON: In the interest of good design so that the development is completed as intended by the Design Codes.

Site access Roundabout 6. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until such time as the access arrangements shown on Drawing Number 15043/017 (Proposed Site Access Roundabout) have been completed in full unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure that vehicles entering and leaving the site may pass each other clear of the highway, in a slow and controlled manner, in the interests of general highway safety and in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

Link road through site to secondary access

7. No more than 300 dwellings in the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until such time as the Link Road to provide secondary access to the Site shown on Drawing Number 15043/019 (Proposed Site Link Road) have been completed in full unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

A6/Kettering Road roundabout

8. No more than 200 dwellings in the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until the completion of the Site Access junction with Kettering Road has been completed in general accordance with the layout as shown on Milestone Transport Planning Drawing Number 15043/018 (A6 / Kettering Road proposed Roundabout) or such other scheme as maybe approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To mitigate the impact of development traffic at the A6/ Kettering Road junction in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

Cycle route on Kettering Road 9. No more than 50 dwellings in the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until such a time as the works to widen the existing footway/cycleway on Kettering Road has been completed in accordance with the layout as shown on Milestone Transport Planning Drawing Number 15043/006 Rev B (Indicative Cycle Route Provision Along Kettering Road) or such other scheme as may be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In the interests of pedestrian safety and transport sustainability.

Scheme for off-site works

10. No dwelling in the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until a scheme has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority for the implementation of highway works to mitigate the impact of traffic associated with this development where the Kettering Road passes under the Midland Main Railway Line, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To mitigate development, in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

Travel plan 11. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be first occupied until a full Travel Plan which sets out actions and measures with quantifiable outputs and outcome targets has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the agreed Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: To reduce the need to travel by single occupancy vehicle and to promote the use of sustainable modes of transport in accordance with Chapter 4 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

Noise Assessment 12. Concurrently with each reserved matters application, further noise assessments, including and implementation plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority. Any noise attenuation works which form part of the approved scheme shall be completed prior to the occupation of the dwellings and shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details at all times thereafter.

REASON: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Phasing plan 13. Prior to the submission of any reserved matters application, a detailed phasing plan and timetable for the development, based on the submitted Illustrative phasing plan, that identifies stages at which each element of the proposed development shall be commenced, completed and made available for occupation (including the affordable housing, local centre, primary school, landscaping and open space, play equipment, sustainable urban drainage scheme, housing and highways infrastructure including the provision of bus stop within the development) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Thereafter, the phasing plan and timetable for the development shall be implemented as approved.

REASON: To ensure the infrastructure is delivered in an appropriate timescale.

Landscaping carried out 14. All soft landscaping comprised in the approved details of landscaping (Condition 2) shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the first occupation of the building(s) or the completion of the development phase whichever is the sooner; All shrubs, trees and hedge planting shall be maintained free from weeds and shall be protected from damage by vermin and stock. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from the date of first occupation of the final dwelling/unit of the development hereby approved of the development , die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. All hard landscaping shall also be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with a programme to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure a satisfactory landscaped setting for the development and the protection of existing important landscape features and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Lighting 15. Concurrently with each reserved matters application, detailed lighting assessments shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority,, the assessments shall achieve a minimum value of 1 lux at the edge of the retained hedgerows. The recommendations shall be implemented and retained in-perpetuity.

REASON: In the interests of wildlife and nature conservation and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Ecology Mitigation.

16. The mitigation measures identified in the Ecology Appraisal, Great Crested newts Assessment and Badger Assessment (Belos Ecology 1st May 2017) shall be fully implemented in accordance with the recommendations (section 5) of that survey, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority and shall be retained as such in perpetuity.

REASON: In the interests of wildlife and nature conservation and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Further ecology surveys 17. No phase of development shall commence on site until a further up-to-date badger survey of land impacted by that phase and review of badger mitigation has been carried out no more than 6 months before the start of phase on site and the results and mitigation measures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained as such in perpetuity.

REASON: In the interests of wildlife and nature conservation and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Landscape and Ecology management plans 18. Concurrently with each reserved matters application, a landscape and ecological management plan based on the recommendations and mitigation measures identified in the Ecology, and Landscape Section, of the ES, including the SUDs areas, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The plan shall include: • Long term design objectives; • Management responsibility; • A timetable for its implementation; • Maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than privately owned domestic gardens.

REASON: In the interests of wildlife and nature conservation and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Protective fencing 19. No development shall commence on site until the trees on the site have been enclosed by protective fencing, in accordance with British Standard 5837 (2010): Trees in Relation to Construction and retained hedgerows shall have a 1metre protection buffer during construction.. Before the fence is erected its type and position shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority, and after it has been erected it shall be maintained for the duration of the works and no vehicle, plant, temporary building or materials, including raising and or, lowering of ground levels, shall be allowed within the protected areas(s).

REASON: To enable the Local Planning Authority to ensure the protection of trees on the site in the interests of visual amenity and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Arboricultural Method Statement 20. No development shall commence on site until an Arboricultural Method Statement (as set out in BS5837:2010), in relation to the Tree Preservation Order trees within and adjacent to the site, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The method statement shall be carried out as approved.

REASON: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the effect of the proposed development on the existing trees and to ensure the long-term survival of those to be retained and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Hedgerow retention: 21. The existing eastern hedgerow on site shall be retained and in no way disturbed, except for any proper management of the hedgerow as and when required. REASON: To ensure that the existing hedgerow(s) on the site can be retained, to enhance the development and to safeguard the appearance of the area and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Housing mix 22. The details required to be submitted pursuant to condition 2 shall provide for a mix of market and affordable housing in accordance with Leicester and Leicestershire Housing and Employment Development Needs Assessment 2017 or subsequent approved policy document.

REASON: To ensure that the housing needs of the locality are appropriately addressed and provided for as part of this development.

Written Scheme of Investigation 23. No development shall commence on site until a written scheme of archaeological investigation which has been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority. The development shall only take place in accordance with the detailed scheme, which shall include the statement of significance and research objectives, approved pursuant to this condition and shall be retained as such in perpetuity. The archaeological works shall be carried out by a suitably qualified body acceptable to the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure satisfactory archaeological investigation and to accord with the Harborough District Council Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Archaeology post investigation 24. The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition 24 and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured.

REASON: To ensure satisfactory archaeological investigation and to accord with the Harborough District Council Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Surface water drainage 25. No development shall commence until a surface water drainage scheme, surface water management plan during construction, long term maintenance of the sustainable surface water drainage system and infiltration testing has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority and implemented as per the approved details and retained in-perpetuity.

REASON: To prevent flooding by ensuring satisfactory storage and disposal of surface water from the site, maintain the existing surface water runoff quality, prevent damage to the final surface water management systems through the construction phases. To establish a suitable maintenance regime that can be monitored and ensure long term performance both in terms of flood risk and water quality. To

demonstrate that the site is suitable (or otherwise) for the use of infiltration techniques as part of the drainage strategy.

Foul water drainage strategy 26. No development shall commence on site until full details of the means of foul water drainage strategy for the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained in perpetuity.

REASON: To ensure the satisfactory drainage of the site and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS10.

Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment 27. No development shall commence on site until a Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in order to ensure that the land is fit for use as the development proposes. The Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment shall be carried out in accordance with: • BS10175 Year 2011 Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites Code of Practice; • BS8485 Year 2007 Code of Practice for the Characterisation and Remediation from Ground Gas in Affected Developments; and • LR 11 Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, published by The Environment Agency 2004. Should any unacceptable risks be identified in the Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment, a Remedial Scheme and a Verification Plan must be prepared and submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Remedial Scheme shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of: • CLR 11 Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, published by The Environment Agency 2004. • The Verification Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of: • Evidence Report on the Verification of Remediation of Land Contamination Report: SC030114/R1, published by the Environment Agency 2010; • CLR 11 Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, published by The Environment Agency 2004. If, during the course of development, previously unidentified contamination is discovered, development must cease on that part of the site and it must be reported in writing to the Local Planning Authority within 10 working days. Prior to the recommencement of development on that part of the site, a Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment for the discovered contamination (to include any required amendments to the Remedial Scheme and Verification Plan) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained as such in perpetuity, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure that the land is fit for purpose and to accord with Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Completion/Verification Report 28. Prior to occupation of any part of the completed development, a Verification Investigation shall be undertaken in line with the agreed Verification Plan for any works outlined in the Remedial Scheme relevant to either the whole development or that part of the development. Prior to occupation of any part of the completed development, a report showing the findings of the Verification Investigation shall be

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Verification Investigation Report shall: • Contain a full description of the works undertaken in accordance with the agreed Remedial Scheme and Verification Plan; • Contain results of any additional monitoring or testing carried out between the submission of the Remedial Scheme and the completion of remediation works; • Contain Movement Permits for all materials taken to and from the site and/or a copy of the completed site waste management plan if one was required; • Contain Test Certificates of imported material to show that it is suitable for its proposed use; • Demonstrate the effectiveness of the approved Remedial Scheme; and • Include a statement signed by the developer, or the approved agent, confirming that all the works specified in the Remedial Scheme have been completed.

REASON: To ensure that the land is fit for purpose and to accord with Core Strategy Policy CS11

Construction Method Statement 29. No development shall commence on site, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: a) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; b) loading and unloading of plant and materials; c) storage of oils, fuels, chemicals, plant and materials used in constructing the development; d) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding, including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; e) wheel cleaning facilities; f) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; g) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from site preparation and construction works; h) measures for the protection of the natural environment; i) hours of work on site, including deliveries and removal of materials; and j) full details of any piling technique to be employed, if relevant.

REASON: To minimise detrimental effects to neighbouring amenities, the amenities of the area in general, the natural environment through pollution risks, and dangers to highway safety during the construction phase and to accord with Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

Avenue of trees/Local centre plaza and footpath 30. Concurrently with each relevant reserved matters application full details of the Landscaping of the Avenue of trees along the primary and secondary road (as per the Design Code), provision of a footpath up to the extent of the land ownership with the Rockingham View public open space and the Local Centre plaza shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: To ensure that proper steps are taken to ensure the long term viability of new trees, improve the connectivity of the site and creation of a local sense of place and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

No dig method paths ,driveways etc.

31. Concurrent with the submission of reserved matters applications, full details indicating the method and nature of construction of the paths, drive/parking area in relation to trees on plan TP/LOPKRMHL/010 B and OP1018-D14 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained as such in perpetuity.

REASON: To ensure that proper steps are taken to safeguard the trees during the course of development and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Levels 32. No development shall commence on site until details of the existing and proposed ground levels and finished floor levels of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained as such in perpetuity.

REASON: To ensure a satisfactory form of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding locality and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Retail floor space 33. The reserved matters application for the phase that includes the Local Centre shall include details of the floor area allocated for retail and non-retail uses within the centre(including storage and delivery areas). The gross internal floor area of the retail part (for A1-A3 falling within Class A of the use Classes Order 1987, as amended) of the proposed local centre shall not exceed 650sq.m. and that the largest unit therein shall not exceed 390sq.m. and shall be retained as such.

REASON: To ensure that the retail uses do not adversely affect the viability of the town centre and to accord with Policy CS7 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

Restrict use class 34. The local centre shall not be used for any purposes other than those falling within Part A, Classes A1-A3 (inclusive) and D1 in the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as amended (or any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification).

REASON: The proposed use is acceptable but the Local Planning Authority wish to consider any future proposal for a change of use, other than a use within the same class(es), having regard to the circumstances of the case.

Number of dwellings 35. The number of dwellings to be constructed on the application site shall not exceed 600 in total.

REASON: To ensure the scheme is carried out within the assessed parameters of the site.

Opening hours 36. The retail units and community uses shall not be open to customers/members of the public between the hours of 0800 and 1000 from Mondays to Sunday (although the week).

REASON: To ensure the creation/retention of an environment free from intrusive levels of noise and activity in the interests of the amenity of the area and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Delivery Hours 37. The delivery and despatch of goods to and from the Local Centre shall be limited to the hours between 0800 and 1800 on Mondays to Fridays, 0800 and 1300 on Saturdays, and at no time on Sundays and Bank or Public Holidays.

Overhead cable 38. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a scheme for the re-location of the existing powerlines across the site including a timetable for implementation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: In the interests of residential amenity and the school and to accord with Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

Appendix A

Appendix B Land adj. to Overstone House, Market Harborough 15/02006/OUT S106 Contribution

Obligation Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification Policy Basis Leicestershire County Council Civic Amenities £80.04 per dwelling/ To be agreed The County Council consider the proposed development is of a Core Strategy: Policy proposed units scale and size which would have an impact on the delivery of civic CS12, Appendix 2 amenity waste facilities in the local area. (Infrastructure Schedule),

The nearest civic amenity site is located at Market Harborough. To minimise waste production and maximise This would be used to mitigate the impacts arising from the re-use and re-cycling of increased use of the civic amenity site associated with the new waste is one of the CS development (In 2012/13 the civic amenity site at market Strategic Objectives (10) Harborough accepted approx.. 4,227 tonnes per annum) for example by the acquisition of additional containers or the Leicestershire Planning management of traffic into and out of the site to ensure traffic on Obligations Policy adjoining roads are not adversely affected by vehicles queuing to Adopted 3rd December get into and out of the civic amenity site. 2014 Each household in Leicestershire in 2012/13 delivered an average of 0.276 tonnes of municipal waste to a civic amenity site. On the . basis of 600 dwellings would generate 164 tonnes of additional waste at the local site. The contribution would meet the demand placed on the site.

Government legislation is focused on maximising the diversion of waste from landfill and the County Council must have appropriate containers and or storage areas to deal with the different types of waste. Due to the complex nature of the waste received at the civic amenity site it will become increasingly different overtime. To maintain performance and a good level of service at peak times, particular with an increased demand placed on it due to the development.

The developer contribution would be used on project ref. MKH005 at the market Harborough Civic amenity site, to increase capacity by Site reconfiguration 2016 to increase capacity by minimising

efficient use of space including amendments to site signage and walls/fencing.

There are no other known obligations fro m other approved developments since April 2010, that affect Market Harborough Civic amenity site which may also be used to fund project MKH005. Education Primary School To be agreed The site falls within the catchment area of Little Bowden School. The Core Strategy: Policy Requirement, site school has a net capacity of 392, and 566 pupils are projected on the CS12, Appendix 2 area for a new roll should this development proceed; a deficit of 174 pupil p[laces. (Infrastructure Schedule), school of 1.93ha and There are currently 14 pupil places at this school funded from S106 a contribution of agreements for other developments in the area. This reduces the Leicestershire Planning £3,315.000 deficit to 160 pupils (16 existing and 144 created by the Obligations Policy development). Adopted 3rd December School site offered at 2014 no cost There are 4 other Primary Schools within a 2 mile walking distance of the development. The overall deficit including all schools in a 2 mile The Framework 2012 walking distance of the development is 107 pupil places. The 144 which seeks to deliver pupil places can not be entirely accommodated at nearby school sufficient community and therefore a claim is justified. cultural facilities and services to meet the Little Bowden School occupies a very constrained site. If the needs development goes ahead a new school be required. This requires a . site area of 1.93ha and a contribution of £3,315.000. This has been calculated taking into account the cost LCC most recent new build 210 place school, less an allowance for 3 classrooms and infrastructure.

The site falls within the catchment area of Welland Park Academy and Robert Smyth Academy. The schools have a joint net capacity of 1800, and 2067 pupils are projected on roll should this development proceed; a deficit of 267 pupil places after taking into Secondary School account the 101 pupils generated by this development. A total of 194 (11-18) Sector pupils places are included in the forecast for these schools from other Requirement S106 agreements for other development in the area and have been £1,304,960.41- discounted. This reduced the total deficit at these schools to 73 pupil £1,354,825.52 places.

101 pupil places generated by the development can therefore be partly accommodated at nearby schools and a claim for an education

contribution of 73 pupils places in the 11-18 sector is justified.

Calculation of contribution is 105 (number of deficit places created by the development) multiplied by the DFE cost multiplier (£18,118.13) which equals £1,304,960.41 The contribution will be used to accommodate the capacity issues created by the development by improving, re-modelling or enhancing existing facilities at Welland Park Academy and Robert Smyth Academy.

Another site would create a demand for secondary school places, this has an effect on the figures if both development are approved, therefore the deficit would be apportioned across the developments..

The number of pupils on roll in Leicestershire Special Schools has risen from 482 in 2002 to 1019 in 2015. The Special school population will continue to grow as a result of the increasing birth rate and the growth in new housing. Currently 0.65% of the primary age population and 1.59% of the secondary age population are educated in Special Schools. Special Schools £210,673.48 All Special school in Leicestershire are full and have a deficit of available spaces, and fare forecast to remain so. In some instances the Special Schools are having to use their own teaching staff to teach pupils in available space in main stream schools. Pupils are therefore missing out on the facilities, equipment and environment a Special School is able to provide.

The Council therefore seeks developer contributions towards the cost of expanding Special School provision for developments of 250 dwellings or more. The threshold of 250 dwellings is chosen to reflect the low special pupil yield and avoidance of claiming very small amounts on all developments.

The development generates 0.93600 primary and 1.90800 secondary SEN pupils. The primary yield (20 pupils per 100 dwellings) x the proportion of primary age pupils attending special schools (0.65%) = number of SEN pupils per 100 dwellings (0.318) so 0.00156 per dwelling. 0.00156 x 600 dwellings = 0.93600 pupils x cost multiplier (£54,445)

per place =£50,960.52 Secondary Yield (20 pupils per 100 dwellings) x the proportion of secondary age pupils attending special schools (1.59%) = number of SEN pupils per 100 dwellings (0.318) so 0.00318 per dwelling. 0.00138 x 600 dwellings = 1.90800 pupils x cost multiplier (£83,707) per place =£159,712.96

There are 5 Area Special Schools in Leicestershire. The closest is Birkett House Community School in Wigston. The school currently has capacity for 150 pupils and 197 pupils are projected on roll should the development proceed, a deficit of 47 places. There is no other Special School in the locality of the development.

Highways 6month bus passes, First occupation Core Strategy: Policy 2 per dwelling. CS12, Appendix 2 (Infrastructure Schedule), Provision of a bus Occupation of service at not less more than 200 Leicestershire Planning than half-hourly dwellings Obligations Policy intervals operating Adopted 3rd December between the hours of 2014. 7.00 am and 7.00 pm Monday-Saturday The Framework 2012 between the Site and para.35 which seeks to Harborough Town promote sustainable Centre has been transport modes. implemented

Bus service contribution for 5 years max. £125,000 per year.

New bus stop

infrastructure, must include, but not be To reduce the need to travel by single occupancy vehicle and to limited to: bus stops, promote the use of sustainable modes of transport in accordance bus shelters, with Chapter 4 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. facilitation of Real Time Information, raised kerbs, lighting and timetable information.

A financial contribution of £2,500.00 per dwelling (a maximum To mitigate the severe highway impact of the development as defined of £1,500,000.00) in paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework. towards schemes identified in the Market Harborough Transport Strategy, supporting Harborough District Council’s new Local Plan.

Libraries 1 bed To be agreed The County Council consider the proposed development is of a scale Core Strategy: Policy houses/apartments and size which would have an impact upon the delivery of library CS12, Appendix 2 @ £15.09 per facilities in the local area. (Infrastructure Schedule), house/apartment The nearest library facility is the Market Harborough Library on Adam Leicestershire Planning 2+ bedroom and Eve Street. Obligations Policy houses/apartment @ Adopted 3rd December £30.18 per The proposal will impact on local library services in respect of 2014. house/apartment additional pressures on the availability of local library facilities. The contribution is sought for public ICT access e.g. bandwidth uplift, etc. 1 bedroom student to account for additional use from the proposed development. It will dwelling @ £10.06 be placed under project HAR002. There are currently 4 other per house/apartment obligations under HAR002 that have been submitted for approval.

The Leicestershire Small area Population and household estimates

2001-2004 gives the settlement population for Market Harborough at approx.. 20,170. The Library has an active borrower base of 4,310 people. However post code analysis demonstrates that the Library attracts usage from a much wider catchment of 398,623 through additional borrowers who live outside the settlement area but come into market Harborough for work, shopping or leisure reasons. Active users of market Harborough Library currently borrow average 24 items per year. The national performance indicator N19 measures the percentage of adults who have used a public library service in the past 12 months and for Leicestershire this figure is approx. 48%. This figure would be higher if children were factored into the equation.

Consequently the proposed development will generate an additional 864 users and require an additional 2083 items of lending stock, plus reference audio, visual and homework support material to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development on the local library service.

Monitoring Fee To be agreed Core Strategy: Policy CS12, Appendix 2 (Infrastructure Schedule),

Leicestershire Planning Obligations Policy Adopted 3rd December 2014. Harborough District Council Community New on-site 1st trigger point, Sports England assessment of Community Space recommends: Core Strategy: Policy Facilities community facility location and ‘Developments with a population of more than 1000 and up to 2000 CS12, Appendix 2 with changing rooms. design of can generate a need for a new multi purpose community hall or new (Infrastructure Schedule), community community facility as a resource to meet the needs of the new facility finalised community.’ Planning Obligations prior to Supplementary Planning commencement Population of more than 1000 up to 2000 ) village hall with a 1 court Document approved in of development badminton hall size 382 square meters. September 2016 and 2nd trigger, published in January community Based on the Sports England Sports Facility Calculator, 600 2017. facility to be built dwellings will generate between 1000 – 2000 thousand residents

and functional (1,300 average-600 x 2.3) which supports our request for an onsite prior to the community facility provision. occupation of the 300th The community hall will be required to have some basic features dwelling. such as a main assembly space, toilets, store room, kitchen, boiler room, entrance foyer. It will also require changing facilities. Open Space Cemeteries and To be agreed The site generates a requirement for a total of just under 5ha of Open Core Strategy: Policy burial grounds. Space. The illustrative masterplan indicates some 12.7ha of parkland CS12, Appendix 2 £120,576.00 and other POS. (Infrastructure Schedule)

If maintenance of the POS is to be undertaken by the District Council Planning Obligations all commuted sums will be calculated pro rata. If the developer Supplementary Planning wishes to maintain the POS through a management company then Document approved in this should be allowed for within the S106 agreement. There will be September 2016 and no commuted sums for maintenance to pay to the District Council if published in January the POS is maintained by others 2017.

Provision of outdoor sports facilities is not generated by this Provision for Open Space development because of an existing oversupply of sports pitches, a Sport and Recreation school site is proposed which will require outdoor sports provision. The Framework (para.73) An off site contribution towards provision of additional cemetery which encourages access space will be required. This amounts to £120,576.00. to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation. The required on site provision will serve the needs of the residents living on the site for play /recreation purposes.

Affordable Housing 30% To be agreed HEDNA 2017 evidence Core Strategy Policy CS3, of 600 units this will HDC Guidance Note: The equal 180 units provision of affordable Current tenure split housing on more than 10 60% rented and 40% units of developments. intermediate or shared ownership. The Framework (Para.

50)

Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document approved in September 2016 and published in January 2017. Local centre New on-site local The Local Due to its edge of town location and maximum walking distance to Core Strategy: Policy centre to provide D1 centre to be built local services and facilities the provision of a local centre is good CS5, CS8 and CS12, and A1, A2 and A3 and functional planning practise. The Berry report supports the viability of the Appendix 2 (Infrastructure uses. prior to the proposed uses. Schedule), occupation of th Marketing and the 300 Delivery details dwelling. required Others

Health Two Shires Medical To be agreed The development is proposing up to 600 dwellings which Core Strategy: Policy Centre £49,428.22 based on the average household size in the area of CS12, Appendix 2 Harborough District Council (Census 2001) of 2.44 could (Infrastructure Schedule), Market Harborough result in an increased patient population of 1464. Based on £53,106.00 the current pattern of patient registrations the 1464 new Leicestershire Planning patients can be divided as follows: Coventry Road – 1167 Obligations Policy new patients and Northampton Road – 297 new patients. Adopted 3rd December 2014. Market Harborough Medical Centre on Coventry Road was completed 18 years ago. Since it was built the town has Planning Obligations grown dramatically and present council plans indicate it will Supplementary Planning continue to grow for the foreseeable future. Changes in Document approved in medical practice, with increasing transfer of work from September 2016 and secondary care, means that not only does the practice have published in January 2017 more patients now, but they attend the surgery more frequently. To accommodate these pressures, the practice The Framework Section 8 staff has been expanded and as a result, the practice is (in particular para.70)

92 seriously short of rooms. Despite rescheduling clinics to run seeks to create healthy over lunch time and in the evenings, several staff have no inclusive communities rooms, and managers share and hot desk. The car park, which initially was adequate, is now far too small and this lack of parking is a cause for patient complaints. Similarly, the Two Shires Medical Centre on Northampton Road has seen a high increase in patient registrations which is impacting on the premises capacity. The Two Shires Medical Centre is proposing an extension to mitigate the impact of the proposed population. The Market Harborough Medical Centre is proposing some internal alterations to mitigate the impact of the proposed population.

The cost (Two Shires MC) of providing additional accommodation for 297 patients is £49,428.22. It is proposed that the best option to accommodate the likely increase of patients would be the refurbishment of current consultation rooms to standard clinic rooms. The practice is assuming the new population will be young families and has concluded that the biggest demand is upon family planning/contraceptive procedures, minor injury and minor ailment conditions. The practice is currently at capacity and restricted in their ability to use the rooms flexibly. Upgrading the consulting rooms to standard clinic rooms with vinyl flooring, infection control paint, and clinical wash hand basins would enable the practice to offer additional appointments to provide additional care and treatment options for new patients in a primary care setting.

The cost (Market Harborough MC) of upgrading an existing room to a generic clinic room which will allow a greater range of services to be delivered to meet the needs of the population has been assessed by a quantity surveyor experienced in healthcare. A typical upgrade to: replace carpet with vinyl; replace current sinks with clinical wash hand basins; replace wall coverings with paint which meets infection control standards will cost £1002 per sq.m. For 1167 patients, it is proposed that 4 rooms will be upgraded. Each room being 13.25sqm. Total cost £53,106.00

Total cost £102,534.22.

Police £163,013.00 To be agreed Empirical data based on existing crime patterns, and policing demand Core Strategy: and deployment from nearby residential areas indicates the direct Policy CS12 and additional impacts of the development on local Policing that will Appendix 2 (Infrastructure be manifested in demand and responses in the following areas- Schedule) · 894 additional calls and responses per year via our control centre. · Attendance to an additional 113 emergency events within the proposed development and locality. The Framework Para 58 seeks environments · 67 non emergency events to follow up with public contact where crime and disorder within the development and locality each year. and the fear of crime do · 52 additional recorded crimes in the locality per year based not undermine the quality on beat crime and household data. In addition 20 recorded of life and community anti social behaviour incidents each year within the new cohesion. development and locality. · The demand for increased patrol cover. · Additional vehicle use relating to 76% of an additional vehicle over a 6 year period. · Additional calls on our Airwaves system where our funding seeks to maintain capacity for call demand at current levels. · Additional use of our PND systems to process and store crime records and intelligence and based on existing levels of use equating to 48 additional hits and data entries per year. · Additional deployment of Mobile CCTV technologies · Additional demand for access to beat staff from the Harborough neighbourhood policing team. · Additional Policing cover and interventions in all the areas described when considering staffing and functions above and for additional accommodation from which to deliver these. Mitigation of impacts: • Equipped staff; • Police vehicles; • Radio cover and capacity; • Police database capacity; • Control room capacity;

• ANPR CCTV Deployment; • Mobile CCTV Deployment • Premises; • Hub equipment.

Performance Bond To be agreed Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document approved in September 2016 and published in January 2017 Monitoring Fee To be agreed Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document approved in September 2016 and published in January 2017

NOTE: Place based policies in CS also refer to provision of infrastructure

Planning Committee Report Applicant: YourLife Management Services Ltd & McCarthy & Stone Retirement

Application Ref: 17/01483/FUL

Location: Development 6, Peaker Park, Rockingham Road, Market Harborough

Proposal: Erection of 58 Extra Care Accommodation (C2) apartments, with associated landscaping and car parking

Application Validated: 13/09/17

Target Date: 13/12/17 – Extension of Time agreed

Consultation Expiry Date: 19/03/17

Site Visit Date: 03/10/17

Case Officer: Janet Buckett

Recommendation

Planning Permission is APPROVED, for the reasons and appended conditions set out in the report, subject to:-

(i) The applicant entering into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or similar to provide for the obligations set out in Appendix A; and (ii) The proposed conditions set out in Appendix C.

The development hereby approved would be in keeping with the form, character and appearance of the surrounding area, would enhance the street scene, would not have an adverse affect on the amenity of nearby residents and would not result in an unsafe highway situation. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Harborough District Local Plan Policy HS/8 and Core Strategy Policies CS1, CS2, CS3, CS5, CS7, CS11, CS12 and CS13 and no other material considerations indicate that the policies of the development plan should not prevail, furthermore the decision has been reached taking into account 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

1. Site & Surroundings 1.1 The application site is situated on the Peaker Park development on Rockingham Road, which is within the Limits to Developments of Market Harborough. The site is allocated in the Local Plan as land for B1, B2 and B8 development (Policy MH/6). This policy has been retained as part of the Core Strategy.

1.2 The specific site is known as development 6. This is the only vacant plot at Peaker Park. Development 6 has been split into two. Within development site 6, next to the roundabout, an application is currently being considered for an office building and the site subject of this application is next to Meadowdale School.

1.3 To the south of the overall site is a primary school and residential estate. To the west of the site are business uses and a B & M retail store and north of the site is an office development. To the east is the A6 bypass.

1.4 The site is to be accessed from the roundabout within Peaker Park. The access point is made. The access is to serve both the Extra Care accommodation and the proposed office building that is currently being considered.

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

Figure 2: View of site from the south

Figure 3: View of site from the north

2. Site History

2.1 The Site has the following planning history,

18/00116/OUT – Outline application for the erection of offices with associated car parking (access and scale to be considered) – Pending consideration 16/00350/VAC – Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of 14/01035/FUL (retrospective) – Permitted 16/00005/ADV – Installation of an illuminated static display sign – Permitted 15/01921/PCD – Discharge of condition 3 (hard and soft landscaping) of 14/00419/FUL – Permitted 15/00798/VAC – Variation of condition 2 of 14/00419/FUL to allow amended plans – Permitted 15/00372/PCD – Discharge of Condition 3 (hard and soft landscaping), 4 (materials), 9 (traffic management plan), 11 (cycle provision) and 15 (section/levels) of 14/01035/FUL – Permitted 14/01035/FUL – Erection of a three storey B1 office premises on land adjacent to the mixed developments of Peaker Park – Permitted 14/00419/FUL – Erection of a two storey office development and associated access way, car parking and external works – Dev 3A – Permitted 12/01693/FUL – Erection of a two storey office building (B1 use) and associated landscaping and hardstanding (revised scheme of 12/00883/FUL) – Dev 4 – Permitted 12/01608/NMA – Amendments to external elevations (non-material amendment to 12/00176/FUL) – Dev 3B – Permitted 12/01567/PCD – Discharge of condition 4 (materials) and 6 (cycle provision) of 12/00176/FUL – Dev 3B – Permitted 12/00883/FUL – Erection of a two storey office building (B1 use) and associated hardstanding and landscaping – Dev 4 – Permitted 12/00551/FUL - Creation of 52 parking spaces for use by Joules Ltd offices with pedestrian link to The Point – Permitted

12/00265/ADV - Installation of externally illuminated and non-illuminated signage – Marstons Public House – Permitted 12/00177/ADV - Installation of non-illuminated signage – Welcomm Communications – Permitted 11/01240/FUL - Installation of play equipment for use in connection with the care home (retrospective) – Permitted 11/00905/FUL - Erection of public house, restaurant, access, car parking and associated works – Permitted 10/01366/FUL - Internal amendments to block A to change stairwell and void to two bedrooms and staff facilities (alterations to 08/01167/FUL) – Care Village – Permitted 10/00443/ADV - Installation of internally illuminated fascia signs, internally illuminated projecting sign and internal illuminated sign – Dominoes – Permitted 10/00039/FUL - Change of use from A3 to A5 hot food takeaway – Permitted 09/01178/FUL – Erection of petrol filling station with convenience store and café (revised building position from previously approved scheme 08/01231/FUL) – Permitted 08/01231/FUL – Erection of a petrol filling station, shop and café – Permitted 08/01167/FUL – Erection of a 166 unit care village to include 86 bedroom residential nursing home, 32 independent living units and a 48 bedroom close care nursing home – Permitted 08/01163/OUT - Erection of a light industrial unit (Development 4) (Means of access, layout, and scale to be considered) – Pending Consideration 08/01162/OUT - Erection of an office park (Development 6) (Means of access, scale and layout to be considered) – Pending Consideration 07/01887/FUL – Erection of new factory and ancillary offices and erection of an office block (revised scheme of 07/01554/FUL and 07/01459/FUL) – Permitted 07/01554/FUL - Erection of offices – Withdrawn 07/01459/FUL – Erection of factory building and ancillary offices – Refused 07/01414/FUL – Construction of roads and sewers including roundabout within site – Permitted 95/01579/3O – Development of land for housing and business purposes (Classes B1, B2 & B8), formation of access and associated landscaping (approx. 37 hectares), land between Rockingham Road and Kettering Road – Permitted

3. The Application Submission

a) Summary of Proposals

3.1 The proposal seeks full planning permission for the erection of 58 Extra Care Accommodation (C2) apartments. The proposal is for one three-storey building. Within the building there are 23 two-bedroom units proposed and 35 one-bedroom units. The main communal space is proposed at ground floor towards the east of the building.

3.2 The proposed building is 9.6m high from ground level to the top of the parapet of the cladded bays. The main height of the building is 8.9m from proposed ground level to the top of the parapet. The building is located next to Meadowdale School sports hall which is 9.3m high. The office building to the east of the site is 15.4m at its highest point and the majority is 14.4m high. This is located on built up elevated land.

3.3 The proposed building has a flat roof and staggered elevations which are further broken up by windows, red brick, render and weatherboarding. The windows are proposed to have grey frames.

Figure 4: Elevation facing Rockingham Road

Figure 5: Elevation facing north

3.4 There are two pedestrian accesses proposed from Rockingham Road. One of these has steps and one has steps and a ramp. At the east of the building is the main entrance, vehicular access and 35 space car park. Within the eastern part of the building near to the main entrance is an internal buggy/mobility scooter store.

100

Figure 6: Proposed site layout and ground floor plan

b) Documents submitted

i. Plans

3.5 The plans under consideration are:

Location Plan 40949 011 Proposed Site Layout 40949 001 Rev. P Proposed Site Entrance Road MA10615/600 Street Scene 40949 009 E Elevations AA BB 40949 018 F Elevations CC DD 40949 019 H Visualisation 40949 021 C Boundary Treatment Plan 40949 012 E Site Section AA 40949 017 B Ground Floor Plan 40949 005 H First Floor Plan 40949 006 I Second Floor Plan 40949 008 J Materials schedule 40949 016 B Proposed Levels & Drainage Strategy MA10615/200 Underground Services Survey 19220_UG01 Waste Water Plan Flood Exceedance Plan MA10615/200

ii. Supporting Statements

3.6 The application has been accompanied by the following supporting statements:

101

Design and Access Statement August 2017 Planning Statement September 2017 McCarthy & Stone/YourLife Extra Care Accommodation Affordable Housing & Contributions Transport Statement August 2017 Drainage Strategy MA10615 – R01A Accident Reports Anglian Water Pre-Planning Assessment Report Microdrainage Retirement Flat Trics

c) Pre-application Engagement

3.7 Prior to submitting the planning application a pre-application enquiry was made. The advice given was positive and that positive feedback had been received from Planning Policy. The Officer also advised that timber cladding would be more appropriate than buff brick to tie it in with existing development in the locality.

4. Consultations and Representations

4.1 Consultations with technical consultees and the local community were carried out on the application. This occurred on 27th September 2017. Further information has been submitted with regards to highways and drainage and relevant re-consultation has occurred on 1st November 2017, 10th November 2017, 14th February 2018, 27th February 2018 and 9th March 2018. Site notices were put up on 3rd October 2017 and a press notice was published on 12th October 2017. The end of the consultation period was 19th March 2018.

4.2 Firstly, a summary of the technical consultee responses received is set out below. If you wish to view the comments in full, please go to: www.harborough.gov.uk/planning

a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees

Market Harborough Civic Society 4.3 No comments.

LCC Highways 4.4 13th October 2017 This is a full planning application to erect 58 extra care accommodation apartments on land off Trimbush Way in Market Harborough. The Local Highway Authority participated in pre application correspondence with Harborough District Council earlier in 2017.

Vehicular access is shown to be from the remaining stub of the Trimbush Way roundabout, and will take the form of a 6m wide carriageway with 2m wide footways on either side. This appears acceptable in principle; however the site layout plan needs to be amended to show the tie in with the roundabout circulatory.

Two points of pedestrian access are shown from the development onto the A4304; whilst the principle of separate pedestrian accesses are welcomed having considered the topography it is not clear how feasible the actual implementation will be as the land appears to drop between the highway extent, and site boundary. The applicant

102

should investigate this further; is there a ditch or watercourse which may need crossing?

The application has been supported by a Transport Statement by Paul Basham Associates Ltd. Upon review, the collision analysis only covers the period 2014-2016. Given that it is now October 2017, please review to ensure that the latest data has been analysed. Data can be sought by emailing [email protected] for which a small charge will be levied.

A bespoke assessment of the proposed car parking provision has been undertaken which is welcomed however, it is not clear whether an assessment has been carried out in comparison to the Highway Authority’s parking standards which can be sourced from the 6Cs Design Guide1. Swept path analyses has been undertaken for both a car and a refuse vehicle; is the bin wagon which has been tracked of suitable dimensions in the event that refuse is collected by Harborough District Council, or a private company?

The TRICs parameters have only been carried out for sheltered accommodation; the Highway Authority are aware that another land use category is available in the TRICS database known as ‘Retirement Flats’ which may share more similar characteristics with the proposed development and therefore an additional comparison exercise would be worthwhile. Two of the disabled parking bays symbols are orientated the wrong way up; they need rotating 180°. The standard parking spaces only measure 5m in length; as per the 6Cs Design Guide 5.5m long parking spaces are advocated and thus it is queried whether it is possible to achieve the longer length?

4.5 19th March 2018 The applicant appears to have addressed all the points previously remained there is one outstanding issue,

4.6 10th April 2018 The initial highway observations dated 13 October 2017 asked the Applicant to provide updated information on the current highway conditions to ensure a robust assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the highway. The Local Highway Authority (LHA) has had the opportunity to review the additional evidence submitted by the Applicant to the LPA in February2018. No objections subject to conditions.

LCC Ecology 4.7 No objections to the proposal. Given its location, on a recently cleared site with no habitats of significance, within the urban area, there is no need for an ecology survey.

HDC Environmental Health 4.8 Due to the size and location of the proposed development a pre-commencement condition for a Construction Method Statement is recommended.

103

Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) 4.9 17th October 2017

4.10 27th November 2017

104

4.11 19th February 2018

105

4.12 14th March 2018

Suggested conditions received.

4.13 13th April 2018

When determining planning applications, Harborough District Council as the local planning authority should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where informed by a site specific flood risk assessment (FRA) confirming it will not put the users of the development at risk. Where an FRA is applicable this should be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and accompanying Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

Further comments have been provided by the applicant to support the removal of drainage condition 4 relating to infiltration testing.

With respect to the overall applicant information submitted up to this point, the surface water drainage proposals are shown and noted as being “strategy” albeit with sufficient detail to be considered acceptable to the LLFA. Conditions 1 to 3 relate to the provision for review of detailed information intended for “construction” of the proposed development, which will have additional details and may need to include any changes in the interim period.

Leicestershire County Council as LLFA advises the Local Planning Authority that: eicestershire County Council as the LLFA if the following planning conditions are attached to any permission granted.

Three suggested conditions received.

Anglian Water 4.13 25th October 2017 Requested a condition for a surface water management strategy.

b) S106 requests

NHS

106

107

Education An education contribution will not be requested for this site as it is for extra care accommodation (retirement apartments). However if the nature of the site should change, we would expect to be consulted again. Total requirement: £0

108

Civic Amenity The Civic Amenity contribution requirements are outlined in the Leicestershire Planning Obligations Policy.

The County Council’s Waste Management Team makes an assessment of the demands any proposed development would have on the existing Leicestershire County Council Civic Amenity infrastructure.

The assessment identifies which site the residents of any proposed development would use. In general, residents use the closest Civic Amenity Site, which for the proposed development would be the Civic Amenity Site at Market Harborough. Residents are entitled to use any Civic Amenity Site within Leicestershire to deposit their waste but in general use their nearest site and this is observed within surveys.

Each proposed development is assessed and considered on its own merits. Existing Civic Amenity sites have a finite capacity for current waste inputs; waste generated from new residential developments, being delivered to the existing site, however, may not easily be accommodated. Where it is expected that the development will generate a need for additional provision, site contributions will be primarily used towards: alterations, new equipment such as compactors extensions and/or redevelopment of the existing site, or construction of a new site at a new location as appropriate.

The nearest Civic Amenity Site to the proposed development is located at Market Harborough and residents of the proposed development are likely to use this site. The Civic Amenity Site at Market Harborough will be able to meet the demands of the proposed development within the current site thresholds without the need for further development and therefore no contribution is required on this occasion.

Future developments that affect the Civic Amenity Site at Market Harborough may result in a claim for a contribution where none is currently sought.

Library Services No claim required for library services. The proposed development would not have any adverse impact on current stock provision at the nearest library which is Market Harborough.

Neighbourhood and Green Spaces

109

110

Community Facility Contribution

111

112

113

Housing Enabling & Community Infrastructure Officer An Affordable Housing contribution has not been sought as Legal advice was given that advised that the development falls within the use class C2 and not within the C3 (dwelling houses) use class.

c) Local Community

4.14 3 letters of general comment have been received from Great Bowden and outside of the District stating they’d be interested to know when the development occurs.

4.15 2 letters of support have been received from Oadby and Hawkwell stating what nice developments McCarthy and Stone do.

5. Planning Policy Considerations

5.1 Please see above for planning policy considerations that apply to all agenda items.

a) Development Plan o Harborough District Core Strategy (Adopted November 2011)

5.2 The relevant Core Strategy Policies are, CS1: Spatial Strategy for Harborough CS2: Delivering New Housing CS3: Delivering Housing Choice and Affordability CS5: Providing Sustainable Transport CS7: Enabling Employment and Business Development CS11: Promoting Design and Built Heritage CS12: Delivering Development and Supporting Infrastructure CS13: Market Harborough

o Retained policies of Harborough District Local Plan

5.3 Relevant retained policies are HS/8, EM/2 and MH/6. Policy EM/2 states that planning permission will be refused for any development other than classes B1, B2

114

and B8 on sites proposed for industrial or commercial estates. Policy MH/6 Land East of Rockingham Road states that consent will be granted for classes B1, B2 and B8 if the following criteria are met. This is that the vehicular access to the site is from Rockingham Road or a distributor road linking Rockingham Road to Kettering Road. A 50m buffer area including a landscaped bund is constructed between the houses and employment development. A Traffic Impact Assessment is submitted with the first application to develop the site. Adequate parking and servicing provision is made within the site. Noise levels will not cause unacceptable disturbance to residential amenity. A Master Plan for the site is submitted and that the development layout includes provision for access and facilities for public transport and pedestrians and cyclists.

Several of these criteria were assessed as part of the previous applications and not all are now relevant to this specific plot.

b) Material Planning Considerations o The Framework 5.4 The National Planning Policy Framework states that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that development should be approved without delay if they accord with the development plan. It states that where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

5.5 The Framework states that the design of the built environment is of great importance and that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

c) Other Relevant Documents o The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, S.I. No. 948 (as amended); o Circular 11/95 Annex A – Use of Conditions in Planning Permission; o Leicestershire County Council Planning Obligations Policy (December 2014); o Leicestershire County Council Highways Authority 6Cs (Highways) Design Guide; o Harborough District Council’s Provision for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (2009); and o Harborough District Council’s Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (January 2017).

c) Other Relevant Information

o Reason for Committee Decision 5.6 This application is to be determined by Planning Committee as it is for more than 10 residential units.

6. Assessment

a) Principle of Development 6.1 The application site is within the Limits to Development of Market Harborough.

6.2 Policy CS1 of the Harborough District Core Strategy states:

“To maintain the District’s unique rural character whilst ensuring that the needs of the community are met through sustainable growth and suitable access to services, the spatial strategy for Harborough District to 2028 is to:

115

a) Enable the development of at least 7,700 dwellings across the District during the period 2006-2028;

b) Develop Market Harborough’s role as the main focus for additional development within the District, promoting its historic function as a market town and safeguarding its compact and attractive character.

… l) Provide for the varied housing needs of the community in terms of tenure, affordability, care and other support needs …”

6.3 Policy CS2 of the Harborough District Core Strategy states:

“The overall housing provision of at least 7,700 dwellings between 2006-2028 will be distributed as follows:

Market Harborough at least 3,300 dwellings …”

6.4 In this case, the proposed development will contribute 58 dwellings towards the Council’s overall housing provision target within Market Harborough, and in general, over the Plan period (2006-2028).

6.5 Retained Local Plan policies state that consent will be granted for classes B1, B2 and B8. The proposal does not therefore comply with these policies. However, in this instance it is considered acceptable to allow a C2 use as it would be a good neighbour for the adjacent school and residential dwellings, it would employ staff and other uses have been allowed on the site resulting in it becoming a mixed use area. There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development in the Framework and therefore it is considered that the benefits of the proposal outweigh the fact it is not a B1, B2 or B8 use. The site has also been vacant for a long time.

6.6 It is considered that in principle the development would be acceptable and would comply with Policies CS1, CS2 and CS3 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

b) Housing Requirement and Housing Land Supply 6.7 The Council presently does not have a 5yr Housing Land Supply. If this application were approved it would provide 58 units in a sustainable location. The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) states,

“Older people have a wide range of different housing needs, ranging from suitable and appropriately located market housing through to residential institutions (Use Class C2). Local planning authorities should count housing provided for older people, including residential institutions in Use Class C2, against their housing requirement. The approach taken, which may include site allocations, should be clearly set out in the Local Plan.

In decision-taking, evidence that development proposals for accessible and manageable homes specifically for older people will free up under-occupied local housing for other population groups is likely to demonstrate a market need that supports the approval of such homes”.

c) Technical Considerations

1. Scale, appearance and landscaping

116

6.7 The surrounding area consists of a mix of design of properties but with generally a similar palette of materials consisting of render, red brick, timber boarding and grey fenestration. The proposed building extends along the frontage of the site and then east into the site. It is three-storey and has a flat roof. The proposed materials of weatherboarding, render, red brick and grey fenestration ensure the proposal is in keeping with the overall character of the commercial estate and also break up the massing of the building. The proposed materials are attractive which helps to contribute to the building’s enhancement of the street scene. The scale of the building is also reduced by the flat roof. It is situated on a main road into Market Harborough and will develop a currently vacant plot that currently does not contribute to the street scene.

6.8 The land on which the neighbouring sports hall is located is elevated and so the sports hall will appear slightly taller than the proposal and behind the site is an office building on elevated land which is 14.4m high and 15.4m high in places. The land rises to the east and so even though the proposed building is large it will not appear over dominant in relation to the surrounding buildings and in the street scene.

6.9 The site is to be enclosed by a 1.8m high fence on the west, east and south boundary and along the Rockingham Road boundary there are to be railings. There are also railings along the Rockingham Road boundary of Meadowdale School. The details of landscaping will be conditioned but the site includes greenery, resident’s garden and landscaping.

6.10 Overall it is considered that the form, siting, materials, scale and design of the proposed development will respect and enhance the character of the surrounding area, will enhance the street scene and will relate to the existing built form. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policies CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

2. Heritage 6.11 There are no designated or non-designated heritage assets in proximity to the development.

3. Amenity 6.12 The building is to be sited next to the side elevation of the neighbouring school’s sports hall and west (and potentially south) of an office building. The nearest residential properties are south west of the site. They are on higher land and of such a distance away that residential amenity will not be adversely affected.

6.13 It is considered that existing and future residential amenity will be safeguarded and the proposal will therefore comply with Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

4. Highways 6.14 LCC Highways made initial comments and the agent has responded to these and addressed any concerns. Data has been submitted to show that the proposal will not result in an unsafe highway situation. Parking provision, layout and space size is acceptable. LCC Highways have recommended conditions that are included in Appendix B.

5. Arboricultural Issues 6.15 There are no trees on the site.

117

6. Ecology 6.16 LCC Ecology have been consulted and raise no objections.

7. Flood Risk/Drainage 6.17 Further information has been submitted to address questions raised by the Lead Local Flood Authority during the course of the application. The LLFA have now confirmed that the development is acceptable subject to conditions.

5. Proposed Use and Planning Obligations 6.18 The submission includes details of how the application seeks to provide accommodation for the frail elderly in a specialised form of accommodation that is currently limited within Market Harborough. Supporting information details how different Extra Care accommodation is compared to conventional retirement housing. Case Law has been submitted detailing how the use is classed as C2 and conditions have been suggested restricting the age to 70 years and older. Legal Services have assessed the information and case law and have advised that the development falls within the use class C2 and that therefore an affordable housing contribution can not be sought.

6.19 A draft S106 agreement has been submitted by the agent. This is attached as Appendix B. However the details are to be confirmed.

6.20 The developer is proposing to meet the required contributions for Community Facilities, Cemeteries and Burials, Health and Sustainable Travel.

6.21 There is a difference of opinion between the developer and the Council’s Green Spaces Officer with regards to the Play Area contribution and whether it is CIL compliant in terms of meeting the statutory tests.

6.22 The Council’s Green Spaces Officer position is a follows:

“There is a play area on Ashley Way that requires remediation work to and the contribution would be provided for this.

There is a demonstrated undersupply of play areas within 800m of the development, therefore contributions are required.

The contribution is calculated to be proportionate with the development.

Other care home development are providing contributions towards Play Areas (St Wilfrid’s Close Kibworth) . I am unable to agree to the S106 in its current format.”

6.23 The developer was asked for a response to these comments and this is provided below:

“As you are aware obligations should not be used to resolve existing deficiencies and should be directly related in scale to the impact a development will make.

In the case of this request, any use of nearby play areas by visiting family would be extremely low compared to if children actually resided in the development. It is a broad assumption that the residents will be grandparents or have regular visits from children. In addition given the closest play area at Ashley Way is a reasonable walk away (especially for young children) and not visible from the site, I would therefore question how frequently it would be used by those visiting the site and therefore the

118

actual impact the development will have, especially to a degree that warrants a contribution.

Clearly we do not want to appear unreasonable however as a matter of principle I would query whether this contribution was necessary or reasonable. We develop numerous extra care schemes around the country and I have not come across such a request before unless there was a direct impact such as the loss of a facility.”

6.24 Officers have considered both points of view on this matter and on this occasion agree with the developer that the contribution sought towards play areas is not CIL compliant.

6.25 Full details of the contributions requested can be found in Appendix A.

d) Sustainable Development 6.26 The Framework identifies three dimensions to sustainable development – economic, social and environmental. Taking each of these in turn the following conclusions can be reached.

o Economic

The development would contribute towards economic growth during the construction period in terms of employment. In the longer term, some of the additional population, visitors and staff would be likely to increase spending, for instance in the local shops and help support a range of other local services, which would help maintain their viability.

o Social

The development would increase the supply and choice of housing in line with an Objectively Assessed Need in an area where there is no NPPF compliant supply of housing land. Moreover, the Framework seeks the provision of housing to meet the needs of different groups in the community (paragraph 50) and the Planning Practice Guidance advises that the need to provide housing for older people is critical. It can also free up houses that are currently under-occupied (paragraph reference ID: 2a- 021-20160401). As such, it is considered that the proposal would contribute to meeting the housing needs of the area. The proposal is, therefore, supported by paragraph 47 of the Framework which seeks to boost the supply of housing.

o Environmental

In terms of environmental considerations, the application site is currently vacant. It is located within the sustainable settlement of Market Harborough, within walking distance to a range of amenities and services, including the train station and bus stops. Statutory consultees are satisfied that the development would not result in increased flood risk, adversely affect highway safety or ecological interests. The development would safeguard the amenities of existing residents.

6.27 In view of the above it is considered that the proposal would represent sustainable development.

7. The Planning Balance / Conclusion 7.1 It is considered that the proposed development would bring forward a significant amount of retirement accommodation which would serve to meet a specific housing

119

need in the community in a sustainable location. Taking all matters into account and the nature of the proposal, the design is considered in keeping with the mixed use character of the area and enhances the site, without adversely affecting residential amenity, and all other technical considerations have been addressed. It is considered that the proposal is in accordance with Policies CS1, CS2, CS3, CS5, CS7, CS11, CS12 and CS13 of the Harborough District Core Strategy and “saved” Policy HS/8 of the Harborough District Local Plan and the Framework, and no material considerations indicate that the policies of the Development Plan should not prevail.

7.2 When assessed against the NPPF, Paragraph 14 (presumption in favour of sustainable development), as well as the NPPF taken as a whole, no significant and demonstrable harm is identified and thus the proposal should be approved without delay.

7.3 The recommendation has been made taking into account Paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF, as well as National Planning Practice Guidance.

7.4 In view of the above it is considered that the proposal would meet the relevant national and local policies. Therefore, this application is recommended for approval subject to conditions and proposed Section 106 agreement.

8. Planning Conditions 8.1 If Members are minded to Approve the application, a list of suggested planning conditions is attached at Appendix C.

120

APPENDIX A – Section 106 contributions

Request by HDC Obligation for Community Facilities contribution Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification Policy Basis Charge per dwelling 50% prior to Project Core Strategy CS12. for new commencement New Scout Hut & Community Centre – build/extension/ construction of new purpose built facility HDC planning policy upgrade projects: 50% prior to the suitable for future development of states that for a £735 first occupation scouting in Little Bowden and beyond, development of this of any dwelling serving also as a community centre. The scale, a community Total Community current building is of a very poor facilities contribution is Facility request: standard with minimal insulations and required to make this £42,630 constant maintenance issues. New development building will be more sympathetic to its acceptable in planning surroundings and will be warm and terms. modern eco performing. The amount requested Evidence of need is based on recent - Consultation with community & Planning Obligations user group Supplementary Planning - Community feedback Document approved in - Census data September 2016 and - Letters of support published in January - Groups have expressed an 2017. interest to use the space - Community facilities in this area HDC considered the are at full capacity Community Facility - Plans/permission/draft lease all contribution to be in place justified and necessary to make the Project development New club house & community hub for acceptable in planning Harborough Cricket & Squash club – terms with accordance New cricket/squash club house needed as with the relevant current one is a wooden building that national and local was built in 1967. New club house will be policies and the social place for both clubs (which are on additional demands that the same site) and will also be available would be placed on key to the community for exercise classes, facilities as a result of social gatherings, meetings and available the proposed for hire for children’s clubs, pre-school, development. business networking meetings, kitchen hire for learning disability groups, Steady The contribution Steps falls prevention program for older request has been people and obesity and diabetes class justified using evidence and any other social groups throughout of need for the the year. community facilities based in the town of

121

Evidence of need Market Harborough or - Consultation with community close proximity to the and user group proposed development. - Community feedback - Census data Any Community - Letters of support Facilities contribution - Approached by user groups would be allocated to - Architect plans in place projects supporting - HDC Health and Wellbeing Team community facilities in already working with older adults the town of Market with the squash club. Plans to Harborough or in close open a cardiac clinic and develop proximity to proposed the Steady Steps session. development. Therefore Additional space will allow room the contribution is to work with disability groups directly related to the development because Project the contribution would St. Dionysius Community Hall extension be used for the purpose to increase capacity – of providing additional Hall at full capacity. Options are to extend capacity through hall into the car park (losing 1 car parking Community Facility space will gain 30sqm extra, losing 2 projects. spaces will gain 50sqm extra). Alternatively there is the option to build The projects evidenced into the roof but further consideration is will benefit the new needed for this option. Current regular residents of the hall users are Little Acorns pre-school, proposed development. Sea Cadets, 2 x Pilates groups, Dance Activate, The Mothers Union, Tea @ 3, The proposal is for The Brownies and regular social residential development gatherings. (58 dwellings) and subsequent provision of Evidence of need Community Facilities - Consultation with community providing benefit to and user group future occupiers is fairly - Community feedback and reasonably related - Committee meetings to this type (kind) of - Space at full capacity. The development. committee would like to expand on social groups for vulnerable HDC consider the adults but hall is at full capacity Community Facilities request to be fair and Project reasonable in scale and Market Harborough Baptist Church – kind to the proposed Works to improve community facilities scale of development including the upgrading of the kitchen to and is in accordance include a serving hatch which will free up with the thresholds floor space. Kitchen upgrade will allow for identified in the luncheon clubs for older people. Softer adopted policies and to finishes to the floor and ceiling to reduce meet the additional acoustic problems which prevent some demands on the Market

122

groups using the space. New suspended Harborough community ceiling will improve insulation increasing facilities. the efficiency of the hall.

Evidence of need - Consultation with community and user groups - Community feedback - Committee meetings - Drawings in place Request by HDC Obligation for Open Space and Recreation Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification Policy Basis Greenways. 1.3ha TBC Off site contributions are sought to Core Strategy CS12. per 1000 population. improve the sustainable transport Off site. Provision of network for cycling and walking in the Provision for Open additional signage town and an off site cemetery and burial Space, Sport and and other ground contribution will be sought for Recreation 2015 enhancements of the additional burial spaces at Northampton sustainable travel Road Cemetery, Great Bowden Cemetery infrastructure. or a new cemetery in the town to be £8,330.00 determined

Cemeteries and burial grounds. 0.375ha per 1000 population. £5,530.00

Total: £13,860

Request by East Leicestershire & Rutland CCG (NHS) Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification Policy Basis The indicative size of TBC The calculation below shows the likely Core Strategy CS12 the premises impact of the new population in terms of requirements has number of additional consultations. This Planning Obligations been calculated is based on the Dept. of Health Supplementary Planning based on current calculation in HBN11-01: Facilities for Document typical sizes of new Primary and Community Care Services. surgery projects factoring in a Consulting range of list sizes Proposed population 58 recognising Access rate 5260 per 1000 patients economies of scale Anticipated annual contacts

123 in larger practices. 0.058 x 5260 = 305 The cost per sqm has Assume 100% patient use of room been identified by a 305 quantity surveyor Assume surgery open 50 weeks per year experienced in 305/50 = 6.10 health care projects. Appointment duration 15 mins This is the cost of Patient appointment time per week providing additional 6.10 x 15/60 = 1.53 hrs per accommodation for Week 58 patients = Additional patients Treatment 58 x Proposed population 58 Standard area Access rate 5260 per 1000 patients m2/person = 0.12 x Anticipated annual contacts Cost of 0.058 x 5260= 352 refurbishment Assume 20% patient use of room including fees £/m2 352 x 20% = 61 £1044 = Assume surgery open 50 weeks per year Total cost 58 x 0.12 x 61/50 = 1.22 £1044 = £7,266.24 Appointment duration 20 mins Patient appointment time per week 1.22 x 20/60 = 0.41 hrs per week

GP practice most likely to be affected by growth and therefore directly related to the development – Within the boundaries of The Two Shires Surgery and Market Harborough Medical Centre. Both practices accept new patients from this area and are therefore likely to feel the impact of the increased population.

The new population would require the practices to increase the number of GP and nurse sessions to meet the needs of the population from the proposed devleopment.

Extra patients mean extra visits to the surgeries, which in turn creates more wear and tear on practice buildings and grounds. It requires more filing space for medical records, more phone calls and extra pressure on staff.

To mitigate the impact of the proposed population practices have identified need for: - refurbishment of existing premises/equipment due to extra wear and tear

124

- additional storage for medical records - converting a consulting room for multi-functional use

East Leicestershire and Rutland CCG is requesting contribution from the developer towards that part of the GP premises development which is attributable to the proposed population increase in Market Harborough. Request by HDC Obligation for Performance Bond Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification Policy Basis TBC In the event of payments required at Planning Obligations some future date, the applicant may be Supplementary Planning required to enter into a bond with a bank Document or insurance company in order to prevent any default in payment through bankruptcy, liquidation or refusal to pay.

Request by HDC / Obligation for LCC Monitoring Fee Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification Policy Basis TBC TBC To cover the costs of monitoring Planning Obligations payments and implementation of the Supplementary Planning developer contributions and scheme. Document

125

APPENDIX B – Draft S106 agreement

DATED 2018

(1) PRIME LIFE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED

(2) MCCARTHY & STONE RETIREMENT LIFESTYLES LIMITED

(3) HARBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL

Planning obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relating to Land at Peaker Park, Rockingham Road, Market Harborough, Leicestershire

Lester Aldridge LLP Solicitors Real Estate Team Alleyn House Carlton Crescent Southampton Hampshire SO15 2EU

Tel: 02380 827400 Fax: 02380 827410 E mail: [email protected] Ref: RBA.MCC.33.2652

126

THIS AGREEMENT is made the day of 2018

BETWEEN

(1) PRIME LIFE : incorporated and registered in England and DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Wales with company number 06963072 and whose registered office is at Caernarvon (“the Owner”) House, 121 Knighton Church Road, Leicester, LE2 3JN

(2) MCCARTHY & STONE : incorporated and registered in England and RETIREMENT LIFESTYLES Wales with company number 06622231 LIMITED whose registered office is at 4th Floor, 100 Holdenhurst Road, Bournemouth, BH8 8AQ (“the Developer”)

(3) HARBOROUGH DISTRICT : of the Symington Building, Adam and Eve COUNCIL Street, market Harborough, LE16 7AG

(“the Council”)

BACKGROUND

(1) The Council is the local planning authority for the purposes of Section 106 of the Act for the area within which the Land is located and the local planning authority by whom the planning obligations in this Agreement are enforceable.

(2) The Owner is the freehold owner with title absolute of the Land.

(3) The Developer has entered into a conditional contract to purchase the Land from the Owner dated 2 June 2017.

(4) The Developer has by planning application reference number 17/01483/FUL4 and dated 13 September 2017 (“the Planning Application”) applied to the Council for permission to develop the Land in the manner and for the uses set out in the Planning Application and in the plans specifications and particulars deposited with the Council and forming part of the Planning Application.

(5) The Council having regard to all material considerations resolved that Planning Permission should be granted for the Development subject to prior completion of this Agreement.

AGREED TERMS

1. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION

In this Agreement:

1.1 the following words and expressions shall have the following meanings unless otherwise stated:

“Act” : means the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

127

(as amended).

“Agreement” : means this document, including the schedules.

“Commencement of : means the date on which any material operation Development” (as defined in Section 56(4) of the Act) forming part of the Development begins to be carried out pursuant to the Planning Permission granted in respect of the Planning Application other than (for the purposes of this Agreement and for no other purpose) operations consisting of site clearance, demolition work, works to remove the existing substation, archaeological investigations, investigations for the purpose of assessing ground conditions, remedial work in respect of any contamination or other adverse ground conditions, diversion and laying of services, erection of any temporary means of enclosure, the temporary display of site notices or advertisements and "Commence Development" and "Commenced Development" shall be construed accordingly.

“Cemeteries and Burial : means the sum of five thousand five hundred and Contribution” thirty pounds (£5,530) to be allocated by the Council towards cemeteries and burial grounds in Market Harborough.

“Community Facilities : means the sum of forty two thousand six hundred Contribution” and thirty pounds (£42,630) to be allocated by the Council towards projects supporting community facilities in the town of Market Harborough.

“Development” : means the erection of 58 extra care accommodation (C2) including associated landscaping and car parking as more particularly described in the Planning Application.

“Dwelling” : means any dwelling (including a house flat or maisonette) constructed pursuant to the Planning Permission.

“Expert” : means such expert as may from time to time be appointed for the purposes of resolving a relevant dispute in relation to this Agreement and/or the Development as follows:

(a) if the dispute relates to transport or

highway works, engineering, demolition,

or construction works, a chartered civil

engineer being a member of the

Institution of Civil Engineers (having not

less than 10 years' relevant experience

in the public or private sector) agreed by

the parties to the dispute but in default of

agreement appointed at the request of

any of the parties by or on behalf of the

President from time to time of the

128

Institution of Civil Engineers;

(b) if the dispute relates to any building within the Development or any similar matter, a chartered surveyor (having not less than 10 years' relevant experience) agreed by the parties to the dispute but in default of agreement appointed at the request of either party by or on behalf of the President from time to time of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors;

(c) if the dispute relates to financial matters or matters of accounting usually and properly within the knowledge of a chartered accountant, a chartered accountant (having not less than 10 years' relevant experience) agreed by the parties to the dispute but in default of agreement appointed at the request of either party by or on behalf of the President from time to time of the Royal Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales; and

(d) if the parties to the dispute fail to agree upon the nature of difference in question then it should be referred to a solicitor or barrister of at least 15 years' standing agreed by the parties but in default of agreement appointed at the request of either party by or on behalf of the President for the time being of the Law Society.

“Health Contribution” : means the sum of seven thousand two hundred and sixty six pounds and twenty four pence (£7,266.24) to be applied towards the provision and improvements of healthcare facilities and to mitigate the impact of the Development on the existing services in Market Harborough.

“Land” : means the land located at Peaker par, Rockingham Road, Market Harborough, Leicestershire registered under title number LT400421 and shown for the purposes of identification edged red on the Plan.

“Occupation” and : means occupation for the purposes permitted by “Occupied” the Planning Permission but not including occupation by personnel engaged in construction, fitting out or decoration or occupation for marketing and Occupy shall be construed accordingly.

129

“Planning Permission” : means planning permission for the Development subject to conditions to be granted by the Council pursuant to the Planning Application in the form of the draft annexed to this Agreement.

“Plan” : means the plan attached to this Agreement.

“Sustainable Travel : means the sum of eight thousand three hundred Contribution” and thirty pounds (£8,330) to be applied towards the provision and enhancement of sustainable travel infrastructure in Market Harborough.

“Working Day” : means any day from Monday to Friday (inclusive) that is not Christmas Day, Good Friday or a statutory Bank Holiday.

2. CONSTRUCTION OF THIS AGREEMENT

2.1 Where in this Agreement reference is made to any clause, paragraph or schedule or recital such reference (unless the context otherwise requires) is a reference to a clause, paragraph or schedule or recital in this Agreement.

2.2 Clause headings shall not affect the interpretation of this Agreement.

2.3 Words importing the singular meaning where the context so admits include the plural meaning and vice versa.

2.4 Words of the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter genders and words denoting actual persons include companies, corporations and firms and all such words shall be construed interchangeable in that manner.

2.5 Wherever there is more than one person named as a party and where more than one party undertakes an obligation all their obligations can be enforced against all of them jointly and severally unless there is an express provision otherwise.

2.6 An obligation in this Agreement on a person not to do something includes an obligation not to agree or allow that thing to be done.

2.7 Any reference to an Act of Parliament shall include any modification, extension or re-enactment of that Act for the time being in force and shall include all instruments, orders, plans regulations, permissions and directions for the time being made, issued or given under that Act or deriving validity from it.

2.8 References to any party to this Agreement shall (subject to clause 5.1 and 5.2) include the successors in title to that party and to any person deriving title through or under that party and in the case of the Council the successors to their respective statutory functions.

2.9 The headings and contents list are for reference only and shall not affect construction.

130

3. THE PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

3.1 This Agreement constitutes a planning obligation for the purposes of section 106 of the Act, section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 and any other enabling powers.

3.2 The obligations set out in Schedule 1 of this Agreement constitute planning obligations for the purpose of section 106 of the Act and the planning obligations are to be discharged by the Owner and are enforceable against them and any person deriving title from them (subject to clause 5.1 and 5.2).

3.3 This Agreement shall come into effect upon the grant of the Planning Permission with the exception of the obligations contained in clause 4 and within schedule 1 which shall not come into effect until Commencement of Development and clauses 8, 9 and 15 which shall come into effect on the date of this Agreement.

4. COVENANTS TO AND BY THE COUNCIL

4.1 The Owner covenants with the Council to observe and perform the covenants and obligations on their part contained within Schedule 1.

4.2 The Council covenants with the Owner to observe and perform the covenants and obligations on its part contained within Schedule 2.

5. ENFORCEABILITY

5.1 No person shall be liable for breach of a covenant, restriction or obligation contained in this Agreement after parting with its interest in the Land except in respect of any breach subsisting prior to parting with such interest and neither the reservation of any rights or the inclusion of any covenants or restrictions over the Land in any transfer of the Land will constitute the retention of an interest for the purposes of this clause.

5.2 This Agreement shall not be enforceable against

5.2.1. the owner-occupier, tenant or mortgagee of a Dwelling or any retail / commercial units to be constructed pursuant to the Planning Permission; or

5.2.2. a statutory undertaker (within the meaning of section 262 of the Act) who acquires any interest in the Land.

6. DEVELOPER CONSENT

The Developer consents to the completion of this Agreement and declares that its interest in the Land shall be bound by the terms of this Agreement PROVIDED THAT the Developer shall not be personally liable for any breach of the obligations unless or until the Developer is the registered proprietor of the freehold interest in the Land.

131

7. DETERMINATION OF AGREEMENT

7.1 The obligations in this Agreement shall cease to have effect (insofar only as it has already been complied with) if prior to the Commencement of Development, the Planning Permission:

7.1.1. expires;

7.1.2. is varied or revoked other than at the request of the Owner;

7.1.3. is quashed or otherwise withdrawn; or

7.1.4. an alternative planning permission is granted in respect of the Land and that planning permission is implemented by the carrying out of a material operation pursuant to section 56(4) of the Act.

8. LOCAL LAND CHARGE

8.1 This Agreement is a local land charge and shall be registered as such by the Council.

8.2 Following the performance and satisfaction of all the obligations contained in this Agreement the Council shall forthwith upon written request effect the cancellation of all entries made in the Register of Local Land Charges in respect of this Agreement.

9. ISSUE OF PLANNING PERMISSION

The Council hereby covenants with the Owner to issue the Planning Permission within 3 days of the date of this Agreement.

10. LEGAL CHALLENGE

10.1 Where the Permission is the subject of any judicial review proceedings or other legal challenge:

10.1.1. until such time as such proceedings or challenge including any appeal have finally been resolved the terms and provisions of this Agreement will remain without operative effect notwithstanding the grant of the Planning Permission unless the Development has been Commenced;

10.1.2. if following the conclusion of such proceedings or challenge the Planning Permission is quashed then this Agreement will cease to have any further effect as from the date upon which the Planning Permission is quashed

10.1.3. Wherever in this Agreement reference is made to a date on which "legal proceedings or challenge in relation to the Planning Permission are concluded" (or cognate expressions are used), the following provisions have application:

10.1.3.1 Proceedings by way of judicial review are concluded:

132

(a) when permission to apply for judicial review has been refused and no further application may be made; or

(b) when the court has given judgment in the matter and the time for making an appeal expires without an appeal having been made or permission to appeal is refused; or

10.1.3.2 Proceedings under section 288 of the Act or in respect of any other legal challenge are concluded:

(a) when permission to apply for statutory review has been refused and no further application may be made; or

(b) when the court has given judgment in the matter and the time for making an appeal expires without an appeal having been made or permission to appeal is refused; or

11. FUTURE PERMISSIONS

Nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit or limit the right to develop any part of the Land in accordance with any planning permission (other than the Planning Permission or modification, variation or amendment thereof) granted after the date of the Planning Permission.

12. NOTICES

12.1 Any notice required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered personally, or sent by pre-paid first class post or recorded delivery or by commercial courier, to any person required to receive the notice or communication at its address or as otherwise specified by the relevant person by notice in writing to each other person

12.2 Any notice shall be deemed to have been duly received:

12.2.1. if delivered personally, when left at the address set out in this Agreement;

12.2.2. if sent by pre-paid first class post or recorded delivery, on the second Working Day after posting; or

12.2.3. if delivered by commercial courier, on the date and at the time that the courier's delivery receipt is signed.

13. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

13.1 In the event of any dispute or difference between the parties or any of them arising out of this Agreement (other than a dispute or difference relating to a question of law or in relation to the interpretation of the Agreement) the parties agree that the matter in dispute will on the application of either of them be referred to the Expert and it is further agreed that:

133

13.1.1. the determination of the Expert shall be final and binding on the parties save in the case of manifest error;

13.1.2. the parties shall be entitled to make representations and counter- representations in accordance with such timetable as the Expert shall direct;

13.1.3. the Expert's costs shall be borne in such proportions as he/she may direct failing which the parties shall each bear their own costs of the reference and determination and the Expert's costs calculated by dividing the Expert's costs by the number of sides to the reference; and

13.1.4. the Expert may be replaced by a fresh appointee in the event of his/her becoming at any time unable or unwilling for any reason to proceed to discharge his/her function and such fresh appointee shall be appointed in the same manner as the Expert.

14. MISCELLANEOUS

Nothing contained or implied in this Agreement shall prejudice or affect the rights discretions powers duties and obligations of the Council under all statutes by-laws statutory instruments orders and regulations in the exercise of their functions as a local authority.

15. COSTS

The Developer shall pay the Council’s reasonable legal fees incurred in the negotiation preparation and execution of this Agreement on completion of this Agreement.

16. CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP

The Owner covenants to give the Council written notice within 10 Working Days of any change in ownership of any of its freehold interest in the Land occurring before all the obligations under this Agreement have been discharged such notice to give details of the transferee’s full name and registered office (if a company or usual address if not) together with the area of the Land or unit of occupation purchased by reference to a plan save for the transfer of any individual Dwelling.

17. THIRD PARTY RIGHTS

No provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.

18. SEVERANCE

Insofar as any clause or clauses of this Agreement are found (for whatever reason) to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, then such invalidity illegality or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Agreement.

134

19. VAT

All consideration given in accordance with the terms of this Agreement shall be exclusive of any value added tax properly payable.

20. JURISDICTION

This Agreement is governed by and interpreted in accordance with the law of England and the parties submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England.

21. DELIVERY

The provisions of this Agreement (other than this clause which shall be of immediate effect) shall be of no effect until this Agreement has been dated.

IN WITNESS whereof the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as a deed on the day and the year first before written.

135

SCHEDULE 1 – COVENANTS BY THE OWNER

The Owner covenants with the Council as follows –

1. COMMUNITY FACILITIES CONTRIBUTION

1.1 Prior to the first Occupation of a Dwelling to pay the first twenty one thousand three hundred and fifteen pounds (£21,315) of the Community Facilities Contribution to the Council.

1.2 not to Occupy or permit Occupation of any Dwellings until the first instalment of the Community Facilities Contribution has been paid to the Council.

1.3 Prior to the Occupation of the 25th Dwelling to pay the remaining twenty one thousand three hundred and fifteen pounds (£21,315) of the Community Facilities Contribution to the Council.

1.4 not to Occupy or permit Occupation of more than 24 Dwellings until the whole of the Community Facilities Contribution has been paid to the Council.

2. CEMETERIES AND BURIAL CONTRIBUTION

2.1 Prior to the first Occupation of a Dwelling to pay the first two thousand seven hundred and sixty five pounds (£2,765) of the Cemeteries and Burial Contribution to the Council.

2.2 not to Occupy or permit Occupation of any Dwellings until the first instalment of the Cemeteries and Burial Contribution has been paid to the Council.

2.3 Prior to the Occupation of the 25th Dwelling to pay the remaining two thousand seven hundred and sixty five pounds (£2,765) of the Cemeteries and Burial Contribution to the Council.

2.4 not to Occupy or permit Occupation of more than 24 Dwellings until the whole of the Cemeteries and Burial Contribution has been paid to the Council.

3. HEALTH CONTRIBUTION

3.1 Prior to the first Occupation of a Dwelling to pay the first three thousand six hundred and thirty three pounds and twelve pence (£3,633.12) of the Health Contribution to the Council.

3.2 not to Occupy or permit Occupation of any Dwellings until the first instalment of the Health Contribution has been paid to the Council.

3.3 Prior to the Occupation of the 25th Dwelling to pay the remaining three thousand six hundred and thirty three pounds and twelve pence (£3,633.12) of the Health Contribution to the Council.

3.4 not to Occupy or permit Occupation of more than 24 Dwellings until the whole of the Health Contribution has been paid to the Council.

4. SUSTAINABLE TRAVEL CONTRIBUTION

136

4.1 Prior to the first Occupation of a Dwelling to pay the first four thousand one hundred and sixty five pounds (£4,165) of the Sustainable Travel Contribution to the Council.

4.2 not to Occupy or permit Occupation of any Dwellings until the first instalment of the Sustainable Travel Contribution has been paid to the Council.

4.3 Prior to the Occupation of the 25th Dwelling to pay the remaining four thousand one hundred and sixty five pounds (£4,165) of the Sustainable Travel Contribution to the Council.

4.4 not to Occupy or permit Occupation of more than 24 Dwellings until the whole of the Sustainable Travel Contribution has been paid to the Council.

5. NOTIFICATIONS

To notify the Council as soon as practicable following:

5.1 the Commencement of Development; and

5.2 the first Occupation of a Dwelling.

SCHEDULE 2 – THE COUNCIL’S COVENANTS

1. REPAYMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS

1.1 The Council hereby covenants with the Owner to use all sums received within the borough in which it operates and for the purposes specified in this Agreement.

1.2 The Council hereby covenants with the Owner to commit all sums received in respect of the Community Facilities Contribution, the Cemeteries and Burial Contribution, the Health Contribution and the Sustainable Travel Contribution within 5 years of receiving it and to repay any monies which have not been committed for use after 5 years to the party that paid the relevant contribution together with accrued interest from the date of receipt until and including the date of repayment.

1.3 The Council shall provide the Owner with such evidence as the Owner shall reasonably require in order to confirm the expenditure of the sums paid under this Agreement.

2. DISCHARGE OF OBLIGATIONS

At the written request of the Owner the Council shall provide written confirmation of the discharge of the obligations contained in this Agreement when satisfied that such obligations have been performed.

137

APPENDIX C – Planning Conditions

9. Planning Conditions

Planning Permission Commencement 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. REASON: To accord with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Permitted Plans 2) The development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with the following approved plans, Location Plan 40949 011, Proposed Site Layout 40949 001 Rev. P, Proposed Site Entrance Road MA10615/600, Street Scene 40949 009 E, Elevations AA BB 40949 018 F, Elevations CC DD 40949 019 H, Visualisation 40949 021 C, Boundary Treatment Plan 40949 012 E, Site Section AA 40949 017 B, Ground Floor Plan 40949 005 H, First Floor Plan 40949 006 I, Second Floor Plan 40949 008 J, Materials schedule 40949 016 B, Proposed Levels & Drainage Strategy MA10615/200, Underground Services Survey 19220_UG01, Waste Water Plan and Flood Exceedance Plan MA10615/200. REASON: For the avoidance of doubt.

Materials Schedule 3) No development shall commence on site until a schedule indicating the materials to be used on all external elevations of the approved building has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained as such in perpetuity. REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area and to accord with the Harborough District Council Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Construction Management Plan 4) No development shall commence on the site until such time as a construction traffic management plan, including as a minimum details of the loading and unloading of plant and materials and their storage, wheel cleansing facilities, vehicle parking facilities, the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate, measures to control the emission of dust and dirt from construction, a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works, measures for the protection of the natural environment, hours of construction work including deliveries, measures to control the hours of use and piling technique to be employed, measures to control and minimise noise from plant and machinery and a timetable for the above, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The construction of the development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable. REASON: To minimise detrimental effects to the neighbouring amenities, the amenities of the area in general, detriment to the natural environment through the risks of pollution and dangers to highway safety during the construction phase and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

138

5) No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until such time as the access arrangements shown on Millward drawing number: MA10615/600 have been implemented in full. REASON: To ensure that vehicles entering and leaving the site may pass each other clear of the highway, in a slow and controlled manner, in the interests of general highway safety and in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

6) No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until such time as site drainage details have been provided to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter surface water shall not drain into the Public Highway and thereafter shall be so maintained. REASON: To reduce the possibility of surface water from the site being deposited in the highway causing dangers to road users in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

7) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until such time as the parking and turning facilities have been implemented in accordance with RG+P drawing number 40949 001 Rev P. Thereafter the onsite parking provision shall be so maintained in perpetuity. REASON: To ensure that adequate off-street parking provision is made to reduce the possibility of the proposed development leading to on-street parking problems locally (and to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward direction) in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Paragraphs 32 and 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

8) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until such time as secure cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with details first submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the cycle parking shall be maintained and kept available for use. REASON: To promote travel by sustainable modes in accordance with Paragraphs 30 and 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

9) No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until such time as a surface water drainage scheme has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. No hard standing areas are to be constructed until the works have been carried out in accordance with the surface water strategy so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage and disposal of surface water from the site. Note The scheme shall include the utilisation of holding sustainable drainage (SuDS) techniques with the incorporation of sufficient treatment trains to maintain or improve the existing water quality; the limitation of surface water run-off to equivalent greenfield rates; the ability to accommodate surface water run- off on-site up to the critical 1 in 100 year return period event plus an appropriate allowance for climate change, based upon the submission of drainage calculations; and the responsibility for the future maintenance of drainage features. Full details for the drainage proposal should be supplied, including but not limited to, headwall details, pipe protection details (e.g. trash screens), long sections and full model scenarios for the 1 in 1, 1 in 30 and 1 in 100 year plus climate change.

10) No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until such time as details in relation to the management of surface water on site during construction of the development has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.

139

REASON: To prevent an increase in flood risk, maintain the existing surface water runoff quality, and to prevent damage to the final surface water management systems though the entire development construction phase. Note Details should demonstrate how surface water will be managed on site to prevent an increase in flood risk during the various construction stages of development from initial site works through to completion. This shall include temporary attenuation, additional treatment, controls, maintenance and protection. Details regarding the protection of any proposed infiltration areas should also be provided.

11) No development approved by this planning permission, shall take place until such time as details in relation to the long term maintenance of the sustainable surface water drainage system within the development have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To establish a suitable maintenance regime, that may be monitored over time; that will ensure the long term performance, both in terms of flood risk and water quality, of the sustainable drainage system within the proposed development. Note Details of the SuDS Maintenance Plan should include for routine maintenance, remedial actions and monitoring of the separate elements of the system, and should also include procedures that must be implemented in the event of pollution incidents within the development site.

Landscaping 12) No development shall commence on site until a scheme of hard and soft landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the details of which shall include: (a) all proposed species, planting sizes and planting densities, spread of all trees and hedgerows within or overhanging the site, in relation to the proposed buildings, roads, and other works; (b) finished levels and contours; (c) hard surfacing materials; (d) minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse and other storage units, signs, etc); (e) boundary treatment including height and materials; (f) external lighting; (f) programme of implementation Thereafter the development shall be implemented fully in accordance with the approved details and retained in perpetuity. REASON: To enhance the appearance of the development in the interest of the visual amenities of the area and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

13) The development hereby permitted shall only be used for the purposes specified in the application and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class C2 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or any provision equivalent to that Class in any Statutory Instrument revoking and/or re-enacting that Order). REASON: The proposal was granted based on its particular nature.

14) None of the individual units of residential accommodation at the development shall be used other than as a private place of residence for a person or persons of whom at least one must be a “qualified person” (defined below) at the date of his or her first occupation of the unit in question’. For the purposes of this schedule “a qualified person” means a person who is or has attained the age of 70 years and in need of personal care by reason of old age or by reason of disablement. (Whether or not such person suffers from a registered disability under the terms of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970). An occupier of one of the individual units of

140

residential accommodation who is not a “qualified person” but who shares or previously shared the accommodation with the “qualified person” (e.g. a spouse or surviving spouse) must have attained the age of at least 60 years. REASON: The proposal was granted based on its particular nature.

15) There shall be no subdivision of apartments, and communal areas shown on the approved plans shall be provided and retained as such for the lifetime of the extra care accommodation hereby permitted. REASON: The proposal was granted based on its particular nature.

Notes to Applicant 1) You are advised that this proposal may require separate consent under the Building Regulations and that no works should be undertaken until all necessary consents have been obtained. Advice on the requirements of the Building Regulations can be obtained from the Building Control Section, Harborough District Council (Tel. Market Harborough 821090). As such please be aware that complying with building regulations does not mean that the planning conditions attached to this permission have been discharged and vice versa.

2) Planning Permission does not give you approval to work on the public highway. To carry out off-site works associated with this planning permission, separate approval must first be obtained from Leicestershire County Council as Local Highway Authority. This will take the form of a major section 184 permit/section 278 agreement. It is strongly recommended that you make contact with Leicestershire County Council at the earliest opportunity to allow time for the process to be completed. The Local Highway Authority reserve the right to charge commuted sums in respect of ongoing maintenance where the item in question is above and beyond what is required for the safe and satisfactory functioning of the highway. For further information please refer to the Leicestershire Highways Design Guide.

3) To erect temporary directional signage you must seek prior approval from the Local Highway Authority in the first instance (telephone 0116 305 0001).

4) If there are any works proposed as part of an application which are likely to affect flows in a watercourse or ditch, then the applicant may require consent under Section 23 of The Land Drainage Act 1991. This is in addition to any planning permission that may be granted. Guidance on this process and a sample application form can be found at the following: http://www.leicestershire.gov.uk/Flood-risk-management

141

Planning Committee Report

Applicant: Mr Jamie Bunce

Application Ref: 17/01746/FUL

Location: The Black Horse Inn, 94 Main Street, Foxton

Proposal: Demolition of a garage and the erection of a dwelling and alterations to car park (revised scheme of 17/00551/FUL)

Application Validated: 12/10/2017

Target Date: 07/12/2017 (Extension of time agreed)

Consultation Expiry Date: 09/11/2017

Case Officer: Faizal Jasat

Recommendation

Planning Permission is APPROVED, subject to;

. The conditions set out in Appendix A

The development hereby approved would be in keeping with the form, character and appearance of the surrounding settlement; would not have an adverse impact on the area of Important Open Land within the site; would not have an adverse affect on the amenity of adjoining residents; and would not result in additional traffic which would give rise to a road safety hazard. Furthermore, it is considered that the development preserves and enhances the character and appearance of the Foxton Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with the Harborough District Local Plan, Core Strategy Policies CS1, CS2, CS5, CS10, CS11 and CS17 and Foxton Neighbourhood Development Plan Policies F5, F7, F8, F9, F10 and F12 and no other material considerations indicate that the policies of the development plan should not prevail. Furthermore, the decision has been reached taking into account 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

1. Site & Surroundings

1.1 The application site forms part of the curtilage of The Black Horse pub in the village of Foxton and occupies part of the car park and open land/garden space on the existing site of the pub. The proposed dwelling would be accessed from within the site, leading off from the existing access to the pub on Main Street. The site is located to the southern part of the village and southern side of the Grand Union Canal that runs east to west within the southern part of the village. The site is located at one of the highest parts of the village.

1.2 The site consists of a two storey traditionally styled pub building fronting Main Street, which is still in operation. The pub is located at the eastern part of the site. To the western side of the pub is a large private car park for the pub that has 37 car parking spaces. Approximately 24 trees are positioned around the site, mainly to the southern and eastern boundaries of the site. There is a grassed beer garden area sloping downwards to the western side of the pub. To the north-western part of the

142

site is a strip of overgrown and unkempt land, with mature trees to the western boundary.

1.3 The area to the west of the site is open countryside and the area to the north and south comprises detached residential houses that vary in design, scale, layout and positioning. A large barn structure for the adjacent site at The Mount Farm is located immediately to the southwest of the site. The closest residential house is 96 Main Street which comprises a bungalow immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the application site. The bungalow sits at a higher level and is broadly in line with the first floor of the pub. The front elevation of the bungalow is set back approx. 9m from Main Street and broadly in line with the rear elevation of the pub. The rear elevation would be approximately 21m in a south-easterly direction of the corner of the closest elevation of the proposed house, which would comprise of the proposed garage. The house is screened by dense hedgerow, mature trees and a 1.8m boundary fence along the common boundary.

1.4 The closest Listed Building is St Andrew’s Church, a Grade II* active church located approx. 60m to the south of the site. A Local Heritage Asset, as define by the Foxton Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP), but not statutorily designated, is located at 100 Main Street; southwest of the site and comprises a traditional residential dwelling. There are two houses, mature trees and barn buildings located between the site and 100 Main Street and St Andrew’s Church.

1.5 The application site consists of two elements, the existing car park and the area of open garden land to the northwest. The existing car park element of the application site is located within the defined Limits to Development, as designated in the NDP and the Local Plan, and the open garden land is located within a Local Green Space, as designated in the NDP and Local Plan. A Public Right of Way (A42) runs adjacent to the western boundary of the site. The site is located within the Foxton Conservation Area. None of the trees on the site are protected by any group or singular tree Preservation Orders.

Figure 1: Site Location

143

Figure 2: View of site from Main Street facing southwest

Figure 3: View of site from Main Street facing northeast

144

Figure 4: View of site from junction of Swingbridge Street and Main Street

Figure 5: View of access

145

Figure 6: View within and across site facing eastwards

Figure 7: View of where proposed house would be located from Main Street

146

Figure 8: View within site facing north – across area of ‘Important Open Land’

2. Site History

2.1  PREAPP/17/00178 – Revisions made to original submission (17/00551/FUL) in response to advice received from the Local Planning Authority (LPA) regarding the design and layout have been addressed. A revised application was welcomed by the LPA.  17/00551/FUL – Demolition of garage and erection of a detached dwelling: Withdrawn  17/00547/FUL – Alterations to car park: Withdrawn

3. The Application Submission a) Summary of Proposals

3.1 The proposal seeks full planning approval for the demolition of an existing garage and the erection of a two storey 4-bed dwelling with a linked 3-car garage, with personal office space above. A separate access for the proposed dwelling would be accessed from within the site from the existing access of the pub. The pub would remain in operation, but the number of parking spaces would be reduced from 37 to 24.

147

3.2 The site has an L-shaped formation and the proposed dwelling would be sited to the central and southwestern part of the site. The access and driveway area would be to the east of the site and the private garden area would be to the north of the site.

3.3 The proposed dwelling would be approximately 8m in height to the ridge and 5m in height to the eaves. The garage would be 6m in height to the ridge and 2.5m in height to the eaves. The garage and house would be linked by a 4m high single storey link to the main dwelling. The garage would consist of 3 parking spaces and utility room at ground floor level and a private office space and shower room at first floor.

3.4 The ground floor would comprise two reception rooms, an open plan kitchen and dining room, hallway and cloakroom. The first floor would comprise of 3 en-suite bedrooms, a dressing room and a bathroom. The private garden area would consist of a short section of turfed area, leading to the part of the site located within the Local Green Space comprising of clover rich amenity grass. No structures are proposed in the garden area. Full details of all proposed facing materials have not been provided, other than that the roof would be clad in slate, external walls would be constructed of brick and the window frames and doors constructed in timber

3.5 The application is a revised submission of an application for a similar development that was withdrawn due to concerns by the LPA regarding the design.

3.6 The current application has been revised from the previous application to significantly amend the design and layout and to reduce the scale and massing of the proposed dwelling.

148

Figure 9: Proposed site plan

149

Figure 10: Proposed elevations

b) Documents submitted i. Plans

3.7 The application has been accompanied by the following plans: . Location Plan & Proposed Layout Plan – 216054-PL11-Rev.A . Proposed Elevations – 216054-PL12-Rev.A . Proposed Floor & Sections Plans – 216054-PL13-Rev.A . Proposed Landscape Plan – 16.1278.003-Rev.C . Proposed Tree protection Plan – 16.1278.002-Rev.A

ii. Supporting Statements

3.8 The application has been accompanied by the following supporting statements:

. Covering Letter . Design and Access Statement – Isherwood McCann – 31st August 2017 . Preliminary Ecological Appraisal – Farrow Walsh Consulting – RSE_822-01- V1 – January 2017 . Parking Provision Survey (superseded) – Farrow Walsh Consulting – October 2017 . Revised Parking Provision Survey – Farrow Walsh Consulting – February 2018 . Pre-Development Survey – Ian Stemp Landscape Associates – 16.1278.R1 – December 2016

150

c) Pre-application Engagement

3.9 Formal pre-application advice was sought prior to the revised application being submitted – Refer to section 2.1.

4. Consultations and Representations

4.1 Consultations with technical consultees and the local community were carried out on the application. This occurred on 19th October 2017 and this statutory consultation period expired on 9th November 2017.

4.2 Firstly, a summary of the technical consultee responses received is set out below. If you wish to view the comments in full, please go to: www.harborough.gov.uk/planning

a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees

4.3 Foxton Parish Council 1. The applicant repeats the assertion that as HDC have a shortfall in their 5 year housing target this should be taken into account by the planning officer. This is only true if there is an NDP less than two years old so is incorrect.

2. There is a reduction in parking inevitably leading to dangerous street parking.

3. We note the following extract from the Foxton Conservation Area statement: Main Street and Swingbridge Street cross the canal via a hump-backed bridge and swing bridge respectively. Land south of the canal is less densely developed than the remainder of the village and rises noticeably. The medieval Church of St. Andrew, standing in its churchyard overlooks the village from its prominent position near the top of the hillside. Between it and the canal are the mature gardens and grounds of the 18th century stone and red brick Manor House and outbuildings. The Manor House itself fronts Swingbridge Street.

Filling in an existing space is not in fitting with the present character and the rising land means that the building will be highly visible and obtrusive from both canal and Main Street. It will also result in a cramped appearance.

This application contravenes Policy F8 in the Foxton NDP referring to the Siting Guidelines in Appendix 1.

4. There are also two listed buildings in the vicinity, the 13/14th century St. Andrews Church and the Manor House, along with the NDP Local Heritage Assets, Mount Farm and Forge House.

5. This development would seriously damage appearance and ambience of the setting of the Black Horse.

6. In a conservation area development must either preserve or enhance and this application does neither.

151

7. Should this application be approved we ask that the parking spaces located within the applicant's curtilage remain available in perpetuity.

4.4 Local Highway Authority (LHA) The Local Highway Authority (LHA) advice is that, in its view the residual cumulative impacts of development can be mitigated and are not considered severe in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF, subject to the conditions for the proposal to be parking and turning facilities to be in accordance with the approved plans.

Advice to LPA from LHA: The applicant was asked to submit further information, particularly in regards to the current levels of parking for the site at peak times. They originally submitted a parking/traffic survey for the pub dated Friday 3rd of February 2017. They have also submitted surveys from Saturday and Sunday 13th/14th January, as well as clarifying the levels of floor space for the site.

It has been clarified that a total of 24 spaces will be provided for the pub, which are satisfactory in terms of the internal dimensions of the pub, as shown in the 6C’s design guide, highway requirements for development part 4 - https://resources.leicestershire.gov.uk/sites/resource/files/field/pdf/2017/2/9/Highway _requirements_for_developments_part4.pdf

The accompanying traffic count for the above mentioned dates also states that the maximum number of vehicles on site for the busiest 3 days of the week were no more than 15. This helps to alleviate concerns of any on street parking issues arising in the surrounding areas, even with an overall site reduction of 13 spaces. All spaces appear to be satisfactory in terms of width, as shown on the Site Layout and Location Plan Drawing no. 216054-PL11.

The proposed drive will remain private and will not be considered for adoption by the LHA. The immediate access will be shared by the pub and dwelling, before becoming two separate drives roughly 25m from the highway.

Sufficient turning room has been provided within the site, which will allow vehicles to enter and exit in a forward gear.

The Floor Plans and Sections Drawing no. 216054-PL13 details that the dwelling is to be provided with 3 off street parking spaces, which is appropriate as outlined in the 6C’s design guide. There also appears to be enough available space within the site to adequately accommodate extra parking provision.

4.5 LCC Ecology I have no objections to this minor development, which is within the existing curtilage of the pub. The ecology report (RammSanderson) is satisfactory; no protected species, evidence of such, or habitats of note were found, and no further ecology surveys are needed. I have no recommendation for ecology mitigation as planning condition.

4.6 HDC Environmental Health No objection, subject to conditions: . Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment . Completion/Verification Investigation Report . Informative – No burning . Informative – Hours of construction

152

4.7 HDC Conservation The proposed dwelling has been reduced in size from the previous submitted scheme. The design of the dwelling in my opinion complements the adjacent buildings. Although the dwelling will be visible from Main Street and to the south of an area of land that was previously designated important open land, because of the design, position and materials used and as a result of the proposed landscaping within the site, I believe the proposal will not result in harm to the character of the conservation area in this location and will therefore not result in harm to the significance of any heritage assets or their setting, in accordance with Chapter 12 of the NPPF.

4.8 LCC Public Rights of way I have overlaid the development plan onto our Definitive Map and it would appear that the proposed development would not directly affect the public right of way. I therefore have no comments to offer.

b) Local Community

4.9 One comment in support of the proposal has been received from the owners of The Black Horse Pub. The supporting comment stated that existing and future investment into the site, and at the applicant’s expense, has and will be positive to the future viability of the pub in terms of improvements to access into the pub. 64 objections and 1 general comment have been received from local occupants of and visitors to Foxton. Issues raised include:  Adverse impact on landscape character  Proposal out of scale with surroundings  Proposal out of character with village and surroundings  Overbearing impact of proposed dwelling  Poor design of proposal  Overdevelopment of site  Potential for dwelling to be extended  Adverse impact on character of the Conservation Area  Adverse impact on the character and setting of nearby Listed Buildings  Insufficient car parking for pub  Increased pressure on roadside parking  Increase in the amount of traffic through village  Subsequent impact on highway safety to due the reduction in number of existing parking spaces for pub and pressure on roadside parking  Inadequate parking spaces for dwelling  Reduction in number of parking spaces for users of St Andrew’s Church  Parking survey carried out by applicant during winter months when the pub is not as busy, as opposed to the summer months  Traffic disruption caused during any construction works  Impact on Public Right of way (PROW) (A42) adjacent to western boundary  Overshadowing  Loss of privacy  Overlooking  Overbearing impact  Disturbance caused during construction works  Noise and disturbance caused by future occupants/visitors using the driveway

153

 Water run-off  flooding  Increased pressure on sewage system  Loss of trees  Light pollution  Site outside of defined Limits to Development of NDP  Proposal is contrary to NDP  Incompatible development  Loss of Local Green Space  Adverse economic impact on pub due to reduction in car parking spaces  Loss of community amenity/asset (pub)  Proposed garden sited outside Limits to Development  Garden incompatibly located within Local Green Space  Council meets 3 years housing supply due to NDP  Site is not an allocated site for housing in NDP  Structural integrity of new dwelling  Concerns regarding health and safety procedures during construction  Boundary fences belonging to neighbour on common boundary  Potential redevelopment of remaining pub site housing Potential for housing or residential conversion

5. Planning Policy Considerations

5.1 Please see above for planning policy considerations that apply to all agenda items. a) Development Plan

5.2 Harborough District Local Plan  HS/8 – Limits to Development. The site is located within the Limits to Development for Foxton –Superseded by NDP Policy F12: Windfall Housing  HS/9-Important open land – Superseded by NDP Policy F9: Local Green Spaces

5.3 Harborough District Core Strategy (Adopted November 2011) Relevant policies to this application are as follow and detailed in the policy section at the start of the agenda:  Policy CS1: Spatial Strategy  Policy CS2: Delivering New Housing  Policy CS5: Providing Sustainable Transport  Policy CS10: Addressing Flood Risk  Policy CS11: Promoting Design and Built Heritage  Policy CS17: Countryside, Rural Centres and Rural Villages

b) Material Planning Considerations

5.4 Material Planning Considerations relevant to this application:

5.5 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sections:  4 – Transport  6 – Wide choice of high quality homes

154

 7 – Good design  10 – Meeting the challenge of flooding  11 – Natural Environment

5.6 National Planning Practice Guidance

5.7 Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes (SPG):  1 – Design Principles  3 – Development of single plots, small groups of dwellings and residential development in Conservation Areas  9 – Landscape and New Development  10 – Trees and Development  11 – Hedges and Development  12 – Lighting in Town and Country  19 – Development and Flood Risk

5.8 Foxton Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) – now adopted

5.9 Relevant NP policies:  Policy F5: Ecology and Biodiversity  Policy F7: Local Heritage Assets  Policy F8: Local Design  Policy F9: Local Green Spaces  Policy F10: Trees  Policy F12: Windfall Housing

155

Figure 11: Foxton NDP – Policies Map 2

156

Figure 12: Close-up of site in Foxton NDP – Policies Map 2

c) Other Relevant Information

5.10 Paragraphs 183-185 of the Framework encourage communities to develop neighbourhood plans and advises that where the NP has demonstrated its general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan and is brought into force, the policies it contains take precedence over existing non-strategic policies in the Local Plan.

6. Assessment a) Principle of Development and Housing Requirement and Housing Land Supply

6.1 The site is located within the currently defined Limits to Development as identified by saved Local Plan Policy HS/8 and the Neighbourhood Plan. Part of the site is also identified as Important Open Land in Saved Policy HS/9 of the Local Plan. Foxton is identified under Policy CS17 of Core Strategy as a Selected Rural Village in which development of a lesser scale will be allowed, reflecting the size, character and service provision of the settlement. The site is also within the Conservation area and close to several listed buildings and therefore Policy CS11 applies.

157

6.2 Currently the Council are not able to demonstrate a 5 year supply and so the restrictive policies HS/8, CS2 (a), CS11 (b) and CS17 (a) are to be considered out of date/afforded lass weight. In light of out of date policies, paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that the presumption in favour of sustainable development means:

“approving development proposals that accord with the Development Plan without delay; and where the Development Plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out- of-date, granting planning permission unless: - any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the polices in this Framework taken as a whole; or [limb 1] - specific polices in this Framework indicate development should be restricted” [limb 2] The Framework states that ‘specific policies’ include those relating to designated heritage assets.

6.3 The Council presently does not have a 5 year Housing Land Supply, which is currently at 4.53 years for the period of 1st October 2017 – 30th September 2022. If this application were approved it would provide one additional dwelling. However, a written ministerial statement on 12 December 2016 set out how planning applications should be determined in circumstances where the local planning authority (LPA) cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing, but there is a neighbourhood plan in force where all of the following criteria apply:

 the written ministerial statement is less than 2 years old, or the neighbourhood plan been part of the development plan for 2 years or less;  the neighbourhood plan allocates sites for housing; and  the LPA can demonstrate a 3-year supply of deliverable housing sites against its 5 year housing requirement.

The written ministerial statement stated that in such circumstances, relevant policies for the supply of housing in the neighbourhood plan should not be deemed to be ‘out- of-date’ under paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Therefore in the case of this application, as the LPA can demonstrate a 3 year housing supply, but the proposal is not within a housing allocation site as designated in the NDP, the proposal will therefore be assessed against NDP Policy F12 – Windfall Housing:

Policy F12: Windfall Housing Individual housing developments within the Foxton Limits to Development, as defined on the Policies Map, will be supported if the development: A. Is in keeping with the scale, grain and character of its surroundings and has appropriate regard for the Conservation Area; the Statement for the latter notes: “The character of the village is the mixture of old and new buildings, the many roads and the dispersed open areas. These spaces are important and are predominantly large garden areas or paddocks”. B. Protects important features such as traditional walls, hedgerows and trees; C. Does not result in the inappropriate loss of residential garden space to the detriment of the dispersed village pattern, the area south of the canal being more dispersed than the remainder of the village; reuse or internal reconfiguration of existing buildings will generally be preferred; D. Has safe and suitable access; E. Addresses the other Policies in this Plan as appropriate to the proposal.

158 c) Technical Considerations

1. Design

6.4 The proposed dwelling would be sited on land located within the defined Limits to Development and within an area characterised by residential dwellings. The portion of the site that is defined as Local Green Space, currently forms part of the private garden space of the pub. This part of the site, although forming part of the residential curtilage, would consist of a large turfed and open area that would continue to remain as open space. Therefore, the application site is considered in landscape terms to have the capacity to accommodate the development proposed.

6.5 The overall area of the application site is 3148m². The combined footprint of the house and garage would be approximately 230m² and therefore the combined footprint of the house and garage would take up less that a tenth of the overall plot size. This house footprint to plot ratio is therefore considered more than adequate and not overdevelopment of the site.

6.6 The proposed dwelling would be two storeys in height, with a ridge height of approx. 8m, with a ridge height slightly lower than the The Black Horse pub. It is acknowledged that the proposed dwelling differs in style, layout and scale to the immediately adjacent bungalow; however, surrounding houses in the immediately surrounding area vary in their era design, layout and scale. In any case, the design of the dwelling is traditional, without being overly elaborate in character and detail and therefore is considered in keeping with overall modest character of the surrounding area and houses within the wider village. The massing and scale of the dwelling is lessened by the use of double gable facing elevations and a lowered central section. The proposed garage at 1.5 storeys in height, whilst considered substantial in scale, would still be read as a subservient structure as it would of shorter height and would link to the main dwelling. A full materials schedule has not been submitted by the applicant; however, the proposed basic palette of slate, brick and timber is considered acceptable and a condition is recommended for details of all facing materials to be agreed with the LPA before any commencement of the development.

6.7 The applicant has submitted a layout plan in support of the application, which includes landscaping details. Six trees would be removed as part of the proposal, none of which are subject to any TPO or considered to be of any significant amenity value, due to their modest appearance. The remaining surrounding trees would be retained, with all trees to the northern part providing the most significant degree of screening of the site and also of the rear of the proposed dwelling.

6.8 The current visual appearance of the existing garden area and designated Local Green Space is considered unkempt. The redevelopment of this part of the site by clearing overgrowth and planting clover rich grass is considered an enhancement on the overall visual appearance of the site. In order to safeguard the open character of the site, a condition is recommended to restrict permitted development (PD) rights to erect structures on the site.

6.9 A landscaping plan has been provided by the applicant that highlights that the proposed garden area would not be overdeveloped and consist of a simple and expansive turfed area. Hardsurfacing within the site would consist of block paving and gravel. The surrounding boundaries of the house would retain trees and hedgerows that would also create some degree of screening of the proposed dwelling. The proposed landscaping scheme is considered acceptable; however, a

159

condition is recommended for all hardstanding to be porous in order to facilitate natural rainwater soakaway and drainage.

2. Neighbouring Amenity

6.10 Objections have been received from occupants of neighbouring houses regarding the potential adverse impacts the proposal could have on the enjoyment of their houses.

6.11 The guideline separation distance between a ground floor principal window and two storey facing elevation is 14m. The closest elevation of the proposed dwelling to the rear elevations of the closest neighbouring houses would be approx. 25m to number 96 and approx. 35m to number 98. Both numbers 96 and 98 have ground floor levels that are higher than the application site and broadly in line with the first floor of the pub and proposed dwelling. The common boundary is screened by mature trees, hedging and a boundary fence of 1.8m in height. The closest neighbouring houses to the north, and downwards of the hill, are numbers 86 and 88. A separation distance of over 50m to number 86 and over 60m to number 88 would be maintained from the proposed dwelling. The proposed dwelling would therefore exceed the guideline minimum separation distance to all of the surround neighbouring houses. Numbers 96 and 98 are to the south of the site and therefore would be unaffected by any degree of adverse overshadowing and loss of daylight and sunlight. As numbers 86 and 88 Main Street are located a significant distance away, any overshadowing caused is not considered adverse of harmful, especially when considering that there are already a significant number of tall and mature trees along both the southern and western boundaries of the site. The proposal is therefore not considered to result in any adverse harm to neighbouring amenity in terms of overshadowing, loss of sunlight/daylight, privacy and outlook, nor to result in any overbearing impact.

6.12 Concerns regarding noise and disturbance caused by construction traffic is not considered a material consideration; however, a note to the applicant is advised for all construction works to take place outside of sensitive hours. Any noise and disturbance caused by vehicles to and from the dwelling is not considered any more harmful than the existing situation with customers using the pub access. A condition is also attached for no external lighting to both the dwelling and car parking area for the pub. In addition, the condition restricting PD rights would ensure that the house could not benefit from being extended and therefore retaining the dimensions of the dwelling as proposed.

3. Highways and Parking

6.13 The number of parking space for the pub would be reduced from 37 to 24 to allow for the proposed development. It is acknowledged that although the car park for the pub has been used by members of the public visiting the village and St Andrew’s Church, the car park is in fact a private car park for the pub and not a public car park. Any arrangement for the car park to be used beyond the sole use of the pub is a private matter for the owner/management of the pub and the public.

6.14 The applicant originally submitted a parking/traffic survey for the pub dated Friday 3rd February 2017. On the request of the LHA, the applicant has submitted further surveys from Saturday 13th and Sunday 14th January 2018, as well as clarifying the levels of floor space for the pub, particularly with regard to the current levels of parking for the site at peak times. The request was made by the LPA in December 2017 and was therefore carried out by the applicant in January 2018 due to the timing of the request by the LPA. It has been clarified that a total of 24 spaces would be provided for the pub, which are considered satisfactory in terms of the internal

160

dimensions of the pub, and therefore in accordance with the 6C’s design guide and LHA requirements for a pub. In addition, all spaces appear satisfactory in terms of width and as shown on the Site Layout and Plan. The accompanying traffic count for the above mentioned dates also states that the maximum number of vehicles on site for the busiest 3 days of the week were no more than 15. This helps to alleviate concerns of any on street parking issues arising in the surrounding areas, even with an overall site reduction of 13 spaces. Whilst it is acknowledged that the pub may be busier during the peak summer months, it must also be acknowledged that for the remainder of the year, the pub would not be as busy and therefore 24 spaces solely for the use of visitors to the pub is considered acceptable and weight cannot be given to unofficial users of the private car park, as this is management matter for the owners(s) of the pub. A condition is however attached for the car parking spaces within the application site to be made available for the sole use of users of The Black Horse Pub.

6.15 The parking provision for the dwelling is considered more than acceptable, as the proposal would have a large driveway and a garage providing 3 car parking spaces. In addition, there is sufficient space within the site for cars to manoeuvre and exit the site in a forward motion. A condition is recommended for the garage to remain as such in order to avoid it being used as separate habitable accommodation.

4. Impact on Important Open Land

6.16 Policy F9 of the NDP states:

The Local Green Spaces identified on the Policies Map will be protected and enhanced. Development which is harmful to these Local Green Spaces will not be supported.

6.17 The current visual appearance of the existing pub garden area and designated Local Green Space is considered unkempt. The redevelopment of this part of the site would consist of clearing overgrowth and creating a simple and expansive turfed area that is considered to enhance the visual appearance of the site. The use of the space as a residential garden, instead of a garden for a commercial pub, would mean that the space is still classified as a Local Green Space, as the policy does not state that it must be for public use. This part of the character of the landscape is therefore considered an enhancement on the existing situation and the recommended condition to restrict PD rights would therefore safeguard the open character of the site.

5. Conservation and Heritage

6.18 Sections 66 & 72 impose a duty on Local Planning Authorities to pay special regard/attention to Listed Buildings/assets and Conservation Areas, including setting, when considering whether to grant planning permission for development. For Listed Buildings/assets, the LPA shall “have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses” (Section 66) and for Conservation Areas “special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area” (Section 72).

6.19 The proposed dwelling is set well within the site and set back from Main Street and partially screened by mature trees and the existing pub. As a result, the dwelling would not appear unduly prominent on the street-scene. As the design of the dwelling is traditional in character and of not too elaborate a design, it is considered in

161

keeping with the character of the surrounding area and considered to enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

6.20 The closest Listed Building affected by the proposal is St Andrew’s Church, which is located 60m to the south of the site. The proposed development is considered a significant distance away from the church and with enough structures and planting between to not adversely affect the character and setting of the Listed building. This is also the case with the Local Heritage Asset at 100 Main Street. Furthermore, the Council’s Conservation Officer has assessed the proposal and considers that the proposal would not result in harm to the character of the Conservation Area in this location nor result in harm to the significance of any heritage assets or their setting.

6. Drainage

6.21 Objections have been raised regarding drainage and flood risk impacts resulting from the proposed development.

6.22 The proposed dwelling is sited in an area of low flood risk and away from any watercourses. Any permission for the dwelling would be subject to building regulations and further dialogue with the relevant drainage provider in terms of connections to the existing network and therefore dealt with more comprehensively at this stage of any approved application.

6.23 A FRA and drainage strategy was not submitted with the application as the site falls within Flood Zone 1 and is under 1ha. As the proposal is for less than 10 dwellings there is no requirement for SUDS. A condition has however been attached for all hardstanding within the site to remain porous in order to facilitate natural soakaway and drainage within the site.

7. Trees & Ecology

6.24 An Ecology report was submitted by the applicant and reviewed by the County Council Ecologist. The report was considered satisfactory and no conditions or notes to the applicant have been recommended.

8. Public Right of Way

6.25 A PROW runs adjacent to the western boundary of the site. LCC Footpaths have been consulted and have commented that the proposed development would not directly affect the public right of way and therefore no comments, notes or conditions have been made. However, a condition is recommended for the existing hedgerows to the southern and western boundary of the site to be retained and undisturbed, in order that the proposed dwelling, which is positioned 4m away from the PROW and at a higher level does not appear overbearing to users of the PROW.

9. Other Matters

6.26 The following concerns have been raised by objectors, all of which are not material planning considerations and can therefore not be given weight as part of the planning consideration of this proposal:

6.27 Structural integrity of the new dwelling and siting close to the western boundary with the PROW

162

The plans indicate that the western side facing elevation of the proposed dwelling would be 4m from the boundary, which is considered an acceptable distance. A condition is recommended for the hedgerow to be retained in order to provide screening. Matters relating to the structural integrity of a proposed dwelling is not a material planning consideration and a matter that would be dealt with under Building Regulations.

6.28 Concerns regarding health and safety procedures during construction.

Procedures relating to construction and heath and safety would need to be dealt with under the appropriate legislation and guidance.

6.29 Boundary treatments on the common boundary to west belonging to the neighbouring land owner

This is a civil matter between the land owners and not a matter that the LPA is able to address, as consideration of the application has only been given to what is proposed within the boundary of the development site.

6.30 Potential redevelopment of remaining pub site housing Potential for housing or residential conversion.

Any proposed future development of the site would be subject to a planning application and the consideration of any such application by the LPA. Any approval of this application does not create precedence for future residential development on the site, as each application is considered on its own individual merits. d) Sustainable Development

6.31 The Framework identifies three dimensions to sustainable development – economic, social and environmental. Taking each of these in turn the following conclusions can be reached:

Economic Provides economic development in the building of one additional dwelling, including one dwelling towards the Council’s overall fiver year supply, where there is currently a shortfall. The development would also generate New Homes Bonus funding for the Council to invest in facilities and infrastructure in the area. As well as the direct economic benefits related to employment generation and investment, the proposal would deliver one dwelling.

Social Provides one new dwelling, which contributes to housing need. The site can be accessed by foot/cycle to the centre of the village and is immediately adjacent to a pub and within 500m walking distance of a primary school and 600m walking distance of a village shop.

Environmental The proposal is well sited and in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area and not considered harmful to the character of the Foxton Conservation Area. A landscaping plan has been submitted with the application and its implantation will be conditioned accordingly. It is therefore considered that the proposal would have no adverse impact on the environment.

163

7. Conclusion

7.1 The application is considered to meet all the policy requirements of NDP Policy F12: Windfall housing.

 The proposed dwelling is considered in keeping with the scale, grain and character of the its surroundings and has appropriate regard for the Conservation Area.  The existing hedgerows and significant number of trees on site would be retained  Would not result in inappropriate loss of residential garden space nor cause detriment to the village pattern, particularly to the south of the canal  The proposal has a safe and suitable access  The proposal is considered to accord with relevant NDP Policies F5, F7, F8, F9 and F10

7.2 The proposal would provide housing development within the District and would contribute towards the Council’s Housing Land Supply. The NPPF provides an undertone of the importance of housing delivery and this site is considered to be sustainable and appropriately within the Limits to Development and considered to have the landscape capacity to accommodate the development and relate well to the existing area.

7.3 Overall it is considered that the proposed dwelling, by virtue of its siting, appearance, scale and massing, would be acceptable and would not adversely affect local highway safety nor give rise to a road safety hazard.

7.4 The development hereby approved would be in keeping with the form, character and appearance of the surrounding settlement; would not have an adverse impact on the area of Important Open Land within the site; would not have an adverse affect on the amenity of adjoining residents; and would not result in additional traffic which would give rise to a road safety hazard. Furthermore, it is considered that the development preserves and enhances the character and appearance of the Foxton Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with the Harborough District Local Plan, Core Strategy Policies CS1, CS2, CS5, CS10, CS11 and CS17 and Foxton Neighbourhood Development Plan Policies F5, F7, F8, F9, F10 and F12 and no other material considerations indicate that the policies of the development plan should not prevail. Furthermore, the decision has been reached taking into account 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

164

APPENDIX A – Planning Conditions

8. Planning Conditions

Planning Permission Commencement 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. REASON: To accord with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Materials Schedule 2) No above ground development shall commence on site until a schedule indicating the materials to be used on all external elevations of the approved dwelling has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained as such in perpetuity. REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area and to accord with the Harborough District Council Core Strategy Policy CS11 and Foxton Neighbourhood Development Plan Policy F8.

Removal of PD rights A-F 3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting or amending those Orders with or without modification), no development within Part 1, Classes A-F shall take place on the dwellinghouse hereby permitted or within their curtilage. REASON: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to enable the Local Planning Authority to consider individually whether planning permission should be granted for additions, extensions or enlargements and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Use of garage 4) The approved garage shall remain permanently remain available and ancillary to the main dwelling for car parking and shall not be sold, let nor otherwise disposed of separately from the remainder of the site. REASON: To ensure that adequate off-street parking provision is made to reduce the possibilities of the proposed development leading to on-street parking problems and ensure that the structure does not result in the formation of a separate dwelling unit and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Parking and turning facilities within curtilage 5) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until such time as the parking and turning facilities designated for the adjacent building and use at The Black Horse have been implemented in accordance with the Floor Plans and Sections Drawing no. 216054-PL13 & the Site Layout and Location Plan Drawing no. 216054-PL11. Thereafter the onsite parking provision shall be so maintained in perpetuity. REASON: To ensure that adequate off-street parking provision is made to reduce the possibility of the proposed development leading to on-street parking problems locally (and to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward direction) in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Paragraphs 32 and 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Porous Material – Hard surface

165

6) The area of ground covered by the hard surface hereby approved shall be made of porous materials, or provision shall be made to direct run-off water from the hard surface to a permeable or porous area or surface within the curtilage of the site. REASON: To ensure the satisfactory drainage of the site and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS10.

No external lighting 7) No external lighting shall be installed within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby approved or within the approved car parking area for users of the adjacent site at The Black Horse. REASON: To prevent intrusive light pollution that is out of keeping with the character of the area and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Hedgerow Retention 8) The existing hedgerows on the southern and western boundaries of the site shall be retained and in no way disturbed. REASON: To ensure that the existing hedgerows on the site can be retained, to enhance the development and to safeguard the appearance of the area and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Landscaping to be carried out 9) All soft landscaping comprised in the approved details (Drg.No.16.1278.003 Rev-C) of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the first occupation of the building or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; All shrubs, trees and hedge planting shall be maintained free from weeds and shall be protected from damage by vermin and stock. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from the date of first occupation of the development, die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. All hard landscaping shall also be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any part of the development. REASON: To ensure a satisfactory landscaped setting for the development and the protection of existing important landscape features and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11 and Foxton Neighbourhood Development Plan Policy F8.

Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment 10) No development shall commence on site until a Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in order to ensure that the land is fit for use as the development proposes. The Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment shall be carried out in accordance with:  BS10175 Year 2011 Investigation Of Potentially Contaminated Sites Code of Practice;  BS8485 Year 2007 Code of Practice for the Characterisation and Remediation from Ground Gas in Affected Developments; and  LR 11 Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, published by The Environment Agency 2004.  Should any unacceptable risks be identified in the Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment, a Remedial Scheme and a Verification Plan must be prepared and submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Remedial Scheme shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of:

166

 CLR 11 Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, published by The Environment Agency 2004.  The Verification Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of:  Evidence Report on the Verification of Remediation of Land Contamination Report: SC030114/R1, published by the Environment Agency 2010;  CLR 11 Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, published by The Environment Agency 2004.  If, during the course of development, previously unidentified contamination is discovered, development must cease on that part of the site and it must be reported in writing to the Local Planning Authority within 10 working days. Prior to the recommencement of development on that part of the site, a Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment for the discovered contamination (to include any required amendments to the Remedial Scheme and Verification Plan) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained as such in perpetuity, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that the land is fit for purpose and to accord with Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Completion/Verification Report 11) Prior to occupation of any part of the completed development, a Verification Investigation shall be undertaken in line with the agreed Verification Plan for any works outlined in the Remedial Scheme relevant to either the whole development or that part of the development. Prior to occupation of any part of the completed development, a report showing the findings of the Verification Investigation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Verification Investigation Report shall:  Contain a full description of the works undertaken in accordance with the agreed Remedial Scheme and Verification Plan;  Contain results of any additional monitoring or testing carried out between the submission of the Remedial Scheme and the completion of remediation works;  Contain Movement Permits for all materials taken to and from the site and/or a copy of the completed site waste management plan if one was required;  Contain Test Certificates of imported material to show that it is suitable for its proposed use;  Demonstrate the effectiveness of the approved Remedial Scheme; and  Include a statement signed by the developer, or the approved agent, confirming that all the works specified in the Remedial Scheme have been completed. REASON: To ensure that the land is fit for purpose and to accord with Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Permitted Plans 12) The development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with the following approved plans 216054-PL11-Rev.A, 216054-PL12-Rev.A, 216054-PL13-Rev.A, 16.1278.003-Rev.C and 16.1278.002-Rev.A. REASON: For the avoidance of doubt.

167

Notes to applicant:

1) You are advised that this proposal may require separate consent under the Building Regulations and that no works should be undertaken until all necessary consents have been obtained. Advice on the requirements of the Building Regulations can be obtained from the Building Control Section, Harborough District Council (Tel. Market Harborough 821090). As such please be aware that complying with building regulations does not mean that the planning conditions attached to this permission have been discharged and vice versa.

2) It is recommended that no burning of waste on site is undertaken unless an exemption is obtained from the Environment Agency. The production of dark smoke on site is an offence under the Clean Air Act 1993. Not withstanding the above the emission of any smoke from site could constitute a Statutory Nuisance under section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

3) Other Building works, deliveries, clearance or any works in connection with the development shall take place on site between the hours of 08.00 – 18.00 hours Monday to Friday, 08.00 – 13.00 Saturday and at No time on Sunday or Public Holidays. To ensure that as far as possible the proposed use does not become a source of annoyance to the nearby residents and to ensure compliance with Policy IN/1 of the Harborough Local Plan.

4) All works within the limits of the highway with regard to the access shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Highways Manager- (telephone 0116 3050001).

5) This planning permission does NOT allow you to carry out access alterations in the highway. Before such work can begin, separate permits or agreements will be required under the Highways Act 1980 from the Infrastructure Planning team. For further information, including contact details, you are advised to visit the County Council website: - see Part 6 of the '6Cs Design Guide' at www.leics.gov.uk/6csdg

168

Planning Committee Report

Applicant: Mr Jonathan Salter Application Ref: 18/00093/FUL Location: Ullesthorpe Court, Frolesworth Road, Ullesthorpe Proposal: Erection of an extension to clubhouse, installation of a golf driving range, pitching area and putting green Application Validated: Target Date: 30/04/18 (extension of time agreed) Consultation Expiry Date: 26/04/18 Site Visit Date: 12/02/18 Case Officer: Louise Finch

Recommendation

Planning Permission is APPROVED, for the reason below and subject to the conditions set out in Section 8 of this report:

The development hereby approved will respect the local character and distinctiveness of the area in which it is located and will respect the landscape setting. The scale and design of the development will not damage the character of the area and residential amenity will be safeguarded. The proposal will support a local, established golf course and hotel and promote visits to the District and enhance sporting opportunities for the local community and will not lead to an unsafe highway situation. The overall long term benefits of the scheme are considered to outweigh any short term negative impact during the construction period. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policies CS11 and CS17, and paragraph 28 of the Framework, and no other material considerations indicate that the policies of the development plan should not prevail, furthermore the decision has been reached taking into account 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework. .

1. Site & Surroundings

1.1 The application site is located approximately 730 metres north of the village of Ullesthorpe, to the east of Frolesworth Road, approximately 864m north of its junction with the Claybrooke Road, sharing an access with the Ullesthorpe Court Hotel and Spa. The location of the golf club is shown below:

169

170

1.2 The application site is relatively remote from any residential property, with the nearest being Courthouse farm (316m NW). Existing access is off the Frolesworth Road, which serves all the existing facilities

The application site is located approximately 90m to the north-east of the Clubhouse and is bounded to the north and east by agricultural fields. The Applicant has recently acquired a section of the eastern agricultural land to allow for the possible future construction of the Driving Range.

171

Site view

2. Site History

2.1 Prior to this application, the site has been subject to various planning applications relating to extensions to the hotel, club house and golf course.

3. The Application Submission

a) Summary of Proposals

3.1 The proposal is to develop a new driving range and range building, par 3 short course, pitching area and putting practice greens adjacent to the existing golf facility. A small extension to the existing clubhouse building is also proposed, and located pre-shop. The existing golf course lacks the wider range of facilities offered by competitor facilities, hence the application.

3.2 The development of the driving range par 3 short course, pitching area and putting practise greens will first require the removal of top and sub soils and their temporary storage in strategic locations around the periphery of the site. In total, approximately 7,400 cubic metres of insitu sub and topsoil would be cut and combined with approximately 120,000 cubic metres of imported inert, non-waste high quality soils to re-contour the excavated area. . All soil movement will take place in accordance with an approved Soil Handling Strategy over a 24 month period (overall development will be over one-two years). The volume of excavated on-site material and importation of fill represent the minimum possible necessary to achieve the required site profile. A separate access for construction access is proposed which will re-open an existing access from club carpark and also improve this access (extended visibility splays and gates set back a minimum of 15m behind highway boundary).

172

It is proposed that hours of construction are restricted and also that hours and number of importation trips are restricted

Importation of inert material will only take place 07:30 –18:00hrs Monday to Fridays. Deliveries will also be avoided where practicable between the hours of 08.30 to 09.30 and 15.30 to 16.00 weekdays to minimise residential disruption. Upon completion of the development it is expected that the practice facilities and new buildings will be operational in line with current UCHGC operating hours.

3.3 It is also proposed that a new covered driving range building will be erected, with 22 public driving bays, dedicated teaching bays and rooms for replaying teaching videos along with an extension to the existing clubhouse building to create a larger pro- shop. The proposed development Masterplan is shown below:

3.4 The Masterplan shows retention of existing landscape features, such as hedges and the planting of new hedgerows, trees, wildflower areas and a new waterbody. All planting material will be appropriate, native and from locally stocked sources and will be managed in line with an approved maintenance plan for a minimum of five years (although it is expected that all planting will be managed in perpetuity as part of the wider golf course site management).

The driving bays, teaching bays, video rooms, pro-shop and clubhouse extension are designed with internal wheelchair ramps to facilitate access by less able Club Members and visitors. The existing Club entrance layout provides ramped access from disabled car parking spaces to the Club main entrance.

173

The land would be re-contoured and some parts built up. The range would be set well below the existing wooded area to the North and relates sensitively to the existing buildings on site as shown by the cross sections below:

174

175

3.5 The course currently employs 40 full time staff and has 60 part time staff. It is anticipated that a further 5 full time employees and 8 part time employees would be employed as a result of the development.

3.6 Construction traffic and routeing: The proposed new driving range will require the net import of approximately 120,000m3 of material. Based on the average payload of a standard eight-wheeled tipper truck being 20 tonnes and each vehicle being expected to carry 9m3 of excavated soils, it is considered that an average of approximately 51 vehicle movements per operational day will be required to complete the importation of inert fill material over the operational period. This is likely to result in an average of between 4 and 5 vehicles accessing the site per hour during the core operational hours. Notwithstanding the foregoing, as a contingency for wet weather encountered during the operational period, the Construction Management Plan (CMP) has considered a maximum of 100 vehicle movements per day. A temporary wheel wash and weighbridge will be installed at the entrance to the site and a small cabin will be required for weighbridge and site staff during construction period. The HGVs will tip their loads directly in the locations required for re-profiling using a temporary haul road constructed from clean hardcore materials. The surface of the haul road will be laid to a fall to promote drainage of surface water. This design together with the provision of a wheel cleaning system at the site exit will reduce the risk of soil from the wheels of the HGVs being deposited on to the public highway.

Delivery vehicles would only be permitted to enter from the north turning left into the access and to leave to the north turning right on exit. There will be appropriate signage to reinforce routeing, including at particular junctions.

It is proposed that on-site construction operations be limited to the following hours: Monday to Friday – 07:30 – 18:30hrs; Saturday – 07:30 – 12:30hrs; and Sundays and Public Holidays – no operations. Importation of inert material will only take place 07:30 –18:00hrs Monday to Fridays. Deliveries will also be avoided where practicable between the hours of 08.30 to 09.30 and 15.30 to 16.00 weekdays

176

Temporary access for construction traffic shown above.

177

The proposed HGV routeing is shown on the plan below. Two routes are shown, both of which avoid Ullesthorpe and involve a right turn out of the site and left turn in from the (improved) construction access. The route 1 is via Frolesworth (eastern edge) and Broughton Astley. Route 2 is via Claybrooke Magna, turning right in the village toward the A5.It is envisaged that both routes are used, and which one is used will depend on where the vehicle is coming from/going to.

The applicant considered importing significantly less material, including an option of no imports, but the existing topography of the site means that cut and fill alone (which would have its own impacts) would not be sufficient to provide the necessary gradients as required.

b) Documents submitted

i. Plans

3.3 The application has been accompanied by the following plans: –  Location Plan  Masterplan  Plans to show extension to clubhouse  New driving range

ii. Supporting Statements

178

3.4 The application has been accompanied by the following supporting information: Transport Statement.

Environmental statements 1 and 2: Statement 1 includes; Noise, dust and air quality, highway impacts, ecology, archaeology.

Noise Impact Assessment Highways Impact Assessment Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Archaeological Impact Assessment Ecological Impact Assessment Flood Risk Assessment Soil Handling Strategy Proposed SUDS strategy

c) Pre-application Engagement

3.5 Prior to submitting the planning application a pre-application enquiry was made. EIA screening opinion was issued and it was determined that an EIA was not required.

4. Consultations and Representations

4.1 Consultations with technical consultees and the local community were carried out on the application. This occurred on , including a site notice posted on the . The consultation period expires on .

4.2 Firstly, a summary of the technical consultee responses received is set out below. If you wish to view the comments in full, please go to: www.harborough.gov.uk/planning

a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees

4.3 LCC Highways The Local Highway Authority does not consider that the application as submitted Adequately assesses the highway impact of development and further information is required as set out in this response. Without this information the Local Highway Authority is unable to provide final highway advice and is unable to advise whether this application is acceptable and any conditions and/or contributions which would be required to make it acceptable in highways terms. Advice to Local Planning Authority The application proposes improvements to the existing access to serve as a temporary construction access however the application does not appear to include a drawing detailing the specific design and geometry of the proposed construction access. It is also anticipated that this design would be accompanied by tracking drawings demonstrating that the proposed access is designed appropriately. Given 18/00093/FUL has been submitted as a full application the Local Highway Authority (LHA) would advise that this detail be clarified prior to any permission being granted. The tracking drawings will also identify if the proposed manoeuvres can be accommodated within the existing adjacent highway and to avoid instances of HGVs overrunning the highway verges. Appropriate mitigation would be required where necessary and the LHA would require pre and post condition surveys be undertaken

179

in line with the highway authority requirements and appropriate provision for recourse of damage and deterioration to the highway. The visibility splay requirements detailed within the 6Cs Design Guidance would require 2.4m x 73m in line with the recorded 85th percentile speed data presented within the application. This detail should be shown on the access drawing submitted.

Revised comments. The applicant has since submitted a tracking drawing (number 021.00/18/0093/03/H/Design Rev A) and covering letter on the 19th March 2018 to seek to address the above comments. The submitted drawing only details tracking manoeuvres for HGV left IN & right turn OUT. The LHA would therefore question why tracking movements for vehicles approaching and leaving southbound along Frolesworth Road has not been undertaken? The application documents have detailed various potential construction routes and the submitted covering letter would suggest this detail is yet to be finalised. That aside the proposed access should still be assessed for all movements to demonstrate if an appropriate access can be designed and what improvements are required, albeit on a temporary basis to cover construction.

Once this assessment has been undertaken a separate access drawing should be Submitted which details the access strategy including required improvements and visibility splays which could then be conditioned were the LPA minded to approve the application. The approved plan would then form the basis for a submission for technical approval to undertake works in the highway. At this stage it is unclear if the access proposed is safe and suitable for the proposed use and if so what improvements are required to facilitate it.

The Applicant has subsequently submitted further information

Transport Statement (TS), which discusses HGV routing. HGV construction traffic will only be permitted to turn left in and right out of the access and accordingly no right turn into the site or left turn out of the site has been illustrated on the vehicle tracking drawing. Given that the two identified routing options presented at Appendix C of the TS (Page 58) stipulated access and egress for HGVs to and from the north, it was only appropriate to provide improved junction radii and alterations on the northern side of the vehicular access. • This strategy also reduces the visual impact of the temporary access whilst also reducing the impact on roadside planting obviating the need to remove mature trees on the southern side. • The Applicant expects to enforce any condition relating to routing with appropriate signing at the vehicular access itself with additional signing at particular junctions. A condition requiring such is anticipated. • Should Planning Permission be granted, the Applicant will prepare a vehicular access Engineering drawing for submission and Technical Approval prior to development commencing. We believe that detailed Engineering construction drawings are not necessary for Planning purposes at this stage. • Visibility splays of 2.4m x 73m have been indicated at the vehicular access which accord with the LHA requirements set out in their consultation response of 2/3/18. The drawing reference 021.00/18/0093/03/H/A illustrates visibility splays and turning radii as specified. • The Applicant undertakes to provide pre and post condition highway surveys in line with the Highway Authority requirements including appropriate provision for recourse in the event of damage and deterioration to the highway. We believe the above adequately addresses the outstanding matters of detail as regards to Highway safety and suitability that are currently giving rise to concern.

180

Additional comments (19/04/18): The Local Highway Authority advice is that, in its view, the residual cumulative impacts of development can be mitigated and are not considered severe in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF, subject to the Conditions outlined in this report. Conditions are recommended relating to Construction traffic management plan (submitted as part of application), gate set back, visibility splays and temporary construction access.

Pre-application comments regarding traffic routeing: The CHA has looked at the two options for HGV routing identified in Appendix C of the submitted Draft Transport Statement and would have no objection to either route being used by construction traffic should the LPA grant any future planning application. However depending on where the construction traffic is coming from / going to Option 1 would be better for southbound and westbound traffic and Option 2 would probably suit northbound and eastbound traffic.

Notwithstanding the above the CHA would ask the Applicant to avoid the B4114 / Sharnford Road junction and the village of Frolesworth.

The details of the temporary construction access should be shown on a scaled plan and include details of the width, geometry and visibility splays based on the standards contained in the 6Cs Design Guide

4.4 LCC (Ecology):

I have no objections in principle to this development - the habitats are of local value only, and there is opportunity for habitat creation and enhancement as part of the proposal.

The main issue to consider is impact on great crested newts, which are present on the golf- course. Because there have been other development proposals adjacent to the golf-course, the golf-course ponds and the GCN population have been surveyed in 2012, 2013 and 2015, and in the Environmental Statement (Ramm Sanderson) submitted, there is reference to additional surveys in 2017. We therefore have a good body of evidence of the population size - which it is important to understand is dispersed across the golf-course ponds.

I feel sure that the development can take place with appropriate mitigation, but this must be based on full not partial data.

I therefore have a holding objection pending submission of full data and a revised mitigation plan to take account of the whole body of evidence with regard to GCNs.

With regard to other ecology proposals, horse chestnut is not native and should not be planted as a biodiversity enhancement measure. The site plan shows creation of a pond, which is welcomed. However, I will reserve my final comments on enhancements when the revised GCN mitigation plan is submitted.

Additional comments and discussion is on-going between LCC Ecologist and Applicant’s ecologist regarding newt mitigation and impact, thus whilst no objection in principle, holding objection remains. Further update will be included on the supplementary papers.

4.5 Environment Agency: No objection-notes to Applicant recommended.

4.6 LLFA: The proposed development would be considered acceptable to Leicestershire County

181

Council as the LLFA if the following planning conditions are attached to any permission granted. (surface water condition and surface water management and SUDS Plan and schedule)

4.7 Natural England: No comments.

4.8 Historic England: No comments.

4.9 LCC (Archaeology); No comments received..

4.10 HDC (Environmental Health): No objections-suggest that there was some sort of complaints procedure in place in the event of any complaints being received.

Following query form Frolesworth PC has confirmed: comments were specifically in relation to the direct environmental effects of site work upon local residents.

Clearly HGVs will need to access/leave the site and it would be the jurisdiction of the highways authority (Leicestershire County Council) to raise concerns about specific vehicle movements/routing plans to and from the site through local villages

4.11 Parish Councils Frolesworth PC: Supports in principle, but has to object at the moment due to 3 practical points which would have serious adverse impact on parish; 1. HGV route A (for construction traffic), should be deleted as passes historic Almhouses in Frolesworth and through historic village centre. 2. There should be appropriate signage to control roureing of construction traffic. 3. Considers that there will be increased car traffic through village and thus requests new structural traffic calming measures in Frolesworth-to be secured through Section 106 agreement.

If these three points of detail are considered acceptable the Parish Meeting would consider its objection negated and trust the planning process could proceed without delay.

Further comments: 1. Refers further to highways comments and considers that Route option 1 should be deleted because it includes road facing historic listed buildings, would adversely affect the condition of vulnerable people in the Almhouses, and it would take HGVs past two schools in Broughton Astley.

This leaves route Option 2 which is to and from a major road, the A5 First, route Option 2 is an established HGV route to Claybrooke Animal Feeds. Whitmoor’s Timber Company, The Gables Business Park, Ullesthorpe Court Hotel and the Golf Club. Secondly it meets the criteria to avoid village centres and historic buildings. Further the deletion of Option 1 and the approval of Option 2 would assist conformance with policies CS11(d) and CS16(b).

The only enforceable way to ensure that HGV drivers keep to the approved route is to make route Option 2 a Condition of Approval. This would avoid doubt for all

182

concerned and provide a focus for the applicant to take responsibility for HGV contractors’compliance. HGV routes: Route management and signage.

The agent says: “The Applicant expects to reinforce instructions relating to construction traffic routing with appropriate signing at the vehicular access itself together with additional signing at particular junctions.”.

This is anecdotal speculation which lacks specificity. It has no legal standing and is impossible to enforce. In common with the route, this should be a closely defined Condition of Approval or a Section 106 Agreement made prior to the 1 May 2018 Planning Committee meeting.

HGV routes: Route management and signage.

The agent says:

“The Applicant expects to reinforce instructions relating to construction traffic routing with appropriate signing at the vehicular access itself together with additional signing at particular junctions.”.

The additional information provided by PT-CE Limited avoids reference to its responsibility to mitigate the post construction impact of the new development. The Parish made the case for this in item 3 of its consultee comments. Consequently it is expected that road calming in Frolesworth Main Street will be the subject a Section 106 Agreement made prior to the 1 May 2018 Planning Committee meeting.

As is clear from the 23 comments posted by Frolesworth residents and the Parish Meeting, in principle Frolesworth Parish supports this application. Few people would be more pleased if the 120 acres site of the hotel and golf club found enhanced economic performance and greater longevity. Issues and solutions, including Conditions of Approval and Section 106 Agreements, concerning the short term impacts, mainly those of HGV traffic, are discussed above. The long term will be felt mostly by the village of Frolesworth, especially by increased car traffic. It is therefore reasonable, proportionate and the safety-first solution for a small part of the enhanced economic benefits to be deployed for road calming.

2 Additional considerations:. • Flooding, light pollution and swept path analysis.

The Parish has limited knowledge of these issues and therefore reserves comment. It has been observed that the road surface adjacent to the entrance floods regularly in periods of heavy and sustained rain. What the effect of putting 120,000 cubic metres of inert waste onto the site will have on flooding is presumably a consideration.

4.12 Ullesthorpe PC:Objects

183

1. Serious concerns about access. Higher volume of traffic on narrow, minor country road , with visibility issues. 2. What controls are in place to limit light pollution/ 3. Concerns regarding flooding and the neighbouring SSSI.

4.13 Claybrooke Parva PC:

Claybrooke Parva Parish Council seeks clarification regarding the siting of the lighting columns and low-level target illumination referred to in the Application: Light columns will be fitted with light hoods/scatter accessories to ensure light is directed away from the woodland canopy and avoids illumination of the trees. Low level target illumination will also be fitted with light hoods/scatter accessories. It is noted that lighting will only be required during the period of October to March but there are concerns over possible light pollution from the development. The Parish Council also echoes concerns over access, namely those of visibility on a narrow, minor country road.

b) Local Community

4.5 20 letters of objection from 19 different households stating the following:

 Agree with Parish comments and prefer to support if it provides extra local employment, however objects to proposed lorry route as per Parish.  Would not want to see lorries operating on Saturdays when there are weddings, etc and more cyclists on roads.  The impact on the environment, pedestrians, and dwellings in the area will be unbearable and the Council is requested to establish an alternative route outside the Parish of Frolesworth for all construction traffic.  The prospect of a minimum of 50 heavy goods vehicles passing this quiet place at least twice daily for 2 years is intolerable and these vulnerable people should not have to be subjected to the noise and other potential intrusion on their lives from 07.30hrs throughout each day of the proposed construction.  Increased air pollution.  Noise impact.  Property damage due to vibration.  Congestion at major junctions and load restricted structures.  Pedestrian safety in residential areas.  Congestion at Broughton Astley Crossroads  Irrespective of the HGV route(s) chosen, I would wish to see a condition of the planning approval being the installation of signage at the junction of the road to Frolesworth off the B4114 (OS Grid Ref SP 48892 92172) for the duration of the construction indicating that there is noaccess to Ullesthorpe Court for construction traffic.  Irrespective of the HGV route(s) chosen, I would wish the planning approval to require that appropriate measures be taken by the contractors to limit delivery times to "off peak" hours.

184

 Given that at least one HGV route is required then, I would suggest Route Option 2 would, for the reasons given earlier, impact a smaller area of the local community and Route Option 1 be discounted.  Given that at least one HGV route is required then, I would suggest Route Option 2 would, for the reasons given earlier, impact a smaller area of the local community and Route Option 1 be discounted.  We also have a lot of cyclists and cycle clubs passing through and also horse riders. With reference to the above I would have to object purely on the grounds of the amount of traffic using the village to access the site.  If another access could be found that does not mean construction traffic travelling through Frolesworth then I would support Ullesthorpe Court in their development.  Near the cross roads in  Broughton Astley there is a children’s park, a nursery, Old mill Primary School and Thomas Estley College, these lorries would make this very busy junction extremely dangerous, especially as there are such a large number of children crossing the roads here at least twice a day.

4.6 3 letters of support:

Will benefit younger players, providing a safe environment to use the practise areas. Will help to recruit and retain young people to play the sport.

Will enable members and the public to get chance to get a taste of golf.

5. Planning Policy Considerations

5.1 Please see above for planning policy considerations that apply to all agenda items.

a) Development Plan

o Harborough District Core Strategy (Adopted November 2011) 5.2 Relevant policies to this application are CS11 and CS17. CS11 is detailed in the policy section at the start of the agenda.

5.3 Policy CS17: Countryside, Rural Centres and Rural Villages is also relevant. This states that development in the countryside will be appropriate if it supports visits to the District. Rural development will be located and designed in a way that is sensitive to its landscape setting, retaining and where possible, enhancing the distinctive qualities of the landscape character.

b) Material Planning Considerations

o The Framework 5.4 The National Planning Policy Framework states in paragraph 28 that rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside should be supported. Paragraph 32 refers to sustainable transport and states that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impact of development are severe.

c) Other Relevant Information

o Reason for Committee Decision

185

5.5 This application is to be determined by Planning Committee as more than 7 letters of representation from 7 different households have been received.

6. Assessment a) Principle of Development

6.1 The proposal will result in the extension and enhancement of an existing sporting and leisure use, creating employment opportunities and will encourage visits to the District. It will benefit businesses in the rural area and offer increased sporting provision, including for the local community therefore in principle, acceptable and in accordance with Policy CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy and Paragraph 28 of The Framework.

b) Technical Considerations

1. Scale, appearance and landscaping

6.2 The Application Site lies within the Local Landscape Character Type; ‘Upper Soar’, a large character area which stretches beyond Harborough District and is an open, elongated basin serving the River Soar. The Application Site lies within the centre of this local character area and although the Lutterworth Lowlands lies to the south and west this area is several miles from the site and therefore the Upper Soar area is considered to be the only area to be influenced by any proposals on the site. The LVIA considers the baseline conditions of the Application Site when viewed from several Key Visual Receptors, including residential properties, Public Rights of Way and local important areas.

The LVIA considers the baseline conditions of the Application Site when viewed from several key visual receptors, including residential properties, Public Rights of Way and local important areas. The LVIA notes that there will be Slight Adverse effects on five local properties and two Public Rights of Way, although these will be short term during the construction period. One potential effect may be the ambient light from night time lighting of the range. This will be designed to be low impact and directed away from sensitive areas such as the woodland but may be noticeable in the evenings and in the winter months. However, this should be seen against a background of the existing hotel, which already has a number of floodlights around the building and within car park areas and so the change in this view is not anticipated to be a significant change (Lighting scheme to be conditioned).. Following the completion of the construction phase and the implementation of a long- term landscape management plan for the new practice facilities then the overall impacts are considered to be neutral or slightly beneficial. The LVIA concludes that the proposed driving range redevelopment can be created without any significant adverse landscape or visual impacts on the site or surrounding sensitive receptors.

6.3 Officers are in agreement with the report and consider that the new development relates well to the existing built form. The area to be developed as the new driving range is situated behind the existing facilities and is not considered visually of merit (see photos above), and views from public view points are limited , as described in the LIVA. Due to the site’s location, the nature of the proposal, and the site’s

186

screening it is not considered that there will be any detrimental impact on the character of the surrounding countryside, and indeed the landscaping proposed may result in long term enhancement. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policies CS11 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

2. Heritage

6.4 The village Conservation Areas are some distance away and would not be affected. The Application Site does not affect directly any statutorily protected buildings and/or structures, nor is it within a Designated area. Notwithstanding this, there are two scheduled moated sites within 2km of the Application Site - one is described as a Moat, Fishponds and Shifted Village Earthworks near to Ullesthorpe and the other a moated site, enclosure and trackway at Claybrooke Parva. Given the distance and relationship it is not considered that these assets will be adversely affected. The report also considers the impact on listed buildings on the proposed construction route and concludes that there would be no significant impact, particularly given the short term nature of the the construction phase and the existing nature of the road network which includes the use of the road by HGV’S and farm vehicles. The below photos show the listed Almshouses in Frolesworth, which are referred to in several letters of objection.

Given the existing nature and use of the road effects there is no evidence to suggest that harm would result on the heritage asset due to HGV movements. Any indirect impacts from noise and emissions would be minimal due to the low speed of the HGVs at that point and the temporary nature of the development. Overall, when considering the impacts of the proposal on cultural heritage assets, it is concluded

187

that these would not be significant. The proposal therefore complies with Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

6.5 The report notes that three excavations have previously taken place within 1km of the survey area with no significant archaeological activity discovered. Archaeological potential is therefore considered to be low.

3. Amenity

6.6 The proposal represents an intensification of an existing business use located in a relatively secluded location away from any immediate residential neighbour and well screened with mature trees. The key issue raised in regard to residential amenity is the HGV vehicle movements associated with construction. A Noise Assessment has been carried out by Messrs Atkinson Acoustics that considers the effect of HGV traffic delivering fill material to the site and the operation of heavy plant and machinery. The report concludes that the predicted change in road traffic noise levels during the temporary construction phase of the development is shown to be an increase of +2.3 dB(A), which corresponds with a low magnitude of impact. Appropriate mitigation for control of noise will be implemented through the construction method statement.. A construction traffic management plan has been submitted as part of the application which details the construction programme and the importation of soil, “It is likely that construction activity would be conducted during two successive years over a total of approximately 104 operational weeks based on a 5-day week (Monday – Friday), which equates to 520 operational days. It is expected that weather conditions during November to March each year may result in restricted earthmoving operations It is likely that construction activity would be conducted during two successive years over a total of approximately 104 operational weeks based on a 5-day week (Monday – Friday), which equates to 520 operational days. It is expected that weather conditions during November to March each year may result in restricted earthmoving operations”.

From the detailed highways information submitted, the HGV movements would represent an increase of @4% on the Frolesworth Road, which would then be split between the 2 suggested routes. As highways Officers have not objected to either route, it is not considered reasonable to delete either route. The deletion of one of the routes would intensify the use of that remaining. In this case Officers consider that the routeing agreement is necessary given there is a highway reason and it is reasonably enforceable given the expected number of vehicles and site destination being easily identifiable. . The potential for light pollution is another key issue as the driving range would require floodlighting. This would be provided by screened LEDs minimising light spill and would be illuminated from 4.00pm to 10.00pm on winter evenings, reducing during the rest of year Driving Range targets would be illuminated during the above hours by low power LEDs set at ground level. The “bowl” profile of the driving range would serve to contain horizontal luminance and reduce light pollution beyond the boundary of the proposed Driving Range. No objections have been raised in principle by the Environmental Health Officers, and Condition required the approval of a detailed scheme.

6.7 Overall it is considered that existing and future residential amenity will be safeguarded, and that the main impact will be short term during the construction period, during which safeguards will be imposed to minimise impact, and the

188

proposal will therefore comply with Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

4. Highways

6.8 The proposal will generate the need to import 120,000m³ of inert soils via 20 T 8 wheeled tipper lorries. The importation will be carried out over a 2-year period for 12 months for each of those years. It is estimated there will be approximately 26No HGV lorry loads generated to the site on average per working day. This equates to a predicted 51.28 (25.64 In & 25.64 Out) HGV vehicular trips per day that will be confined to an agreed route on the local road network. In order to permit a reasonable amount of flexibility, it is recommended however that a maximum of 100No HGV vehicular trips be permitted per day In terms of overall traffic impact, this will give rise to a predicted daily increase in traffic flow of 4.17% along Frolesworth Road (51.28 trips / 1230 (existing 2- way daily movements) x 100). This is not considered to be severe in percentage impact terms in the context of paragraph 32 of the NPPF. Frolesworth PC have requested traffic calming contributions should be sought for the village, given the likely increase in traffic following completion of the works but this is not considered proportionate, or reasonably justified by the development, and is not a highways requirement.

6.9 The use of the temporary construction access is considered acceptable, subject to the suggested improvements and it is noted that this is the re-opening of an existing access. Any intensification of use of the existing access which has good visibility is acceptable and there is ample carparking already available on site.

5. Flooding

6.10 The FRA notes that the site is located wholly within Flood Zone 1.The FRA has considered the risks of fluvial flooding, the existing and proposed drainage system, surface water and overland flow, groundwater, canals and reservoirs as well as existing small ponds in and around the Application Site. The FRA concludes that while the very eastern boundary of the site may be at risk from residual overland and surface water flooding, this risk is considered to be low. The risk from flooding of the Application Site is considered to be low and that the proposed development is unlikely to increase flood risk to other nearby land uses. The FRA concludes that the proposed development conforms with the NPPF and NPPG in terms of flood risk at and beyond the Application Site’s boundary and that surface water drainage on site through the use of ponds will be acceptable. The EA and LLFA recommend conditions accordingly.

d) Sustainable Development

6.11 The Framework identifies three dimensions to sustainable development – economic, social and environmental. Taking each of these in turn the following conclusions can be reached. o Economic: The proposal will support the existing golf course, hotel and associated businesses and provide additional employment opportunities, including locally. o Social: The proposal will support local businesses and encourage visits to the District. It will also provide sporting opportunities for the community, including encouraging youngsters to play golf.

189

o Environmental: The proposal is in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside, but there may be some short term negative impacts during the construction period.

7. The Planning Balance / Conclusion

7.1 The development hereby approved will respect the local character and distinctiveness of the area in which it is located and will respect the landscape setting. The scale and design of the development will not damage the character of the area and residential amenity will be safeguarded. The proposal will support a local, established golf course and hotel and promote visits to the District and enhance sporting opportunities for the local community and will not lead to an unsafe highway situation. The overall long term benefits of the scheme are considered to outweigh any short term negative impact during the construction period. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policies CS11 and CS17, and paragraph 28 of the Framework, and no other material considerations indicate that the policies of the development plan should not prevail, furthermore the decision has been reached taking into account 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

8. Planning Conditions

1) Planning Permission Commencement The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. REASON: To accord with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2) Permitted Plans The development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with the following approved plans Location Plan, Proposed range Masterplan ULL1MP01 C; 021.00/18/0093/03/H/A; 016A; 012B; 13B; ULL1LP01

3) Materials: The development hereby permitted shall be constructed entirely of the materials as detailed in plan(s) 016A; 012B;13B. REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area and to accord with the Harborough District Council Core Strategy Policy CS11.

4) Ecology: The development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Mitigation measures detailed in the Ecological Survey by RammSanderson. No development shall commence on site until a further newt mitigation strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained as such in perpetuity. REASON: In the interests of wildlife and nature conservation and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.

5) Construction access: Prior to commencement of development, save works associated with improvements to the temporary construction access, the proposed construction access shall be provided in general accordance with drawing number 021.00/18/0093/03/H/Design Rev A. The access once provided shall be so maintained for the period of construction on site before being

190 closed and reinstated in accordance with a scheme that shall have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that vehicles entering and leaving the site may pass each other clear of the highway, in a slow and controlled manner, in the interests of general highway safety and in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

6) Access visibility: No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until such time as vehicular visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 73 metres have been provided at the site access. These shall thereafter be permanently maintained with nothing within those splays higher than 0.6 metres above the level of the adjacent footway/verge/highway. REASON: To afford adequate visibility at the access to cater for the expected volume of traffic joining the existing highway network, in the interests of general highway safety, and in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

7) Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 2 of Schedule 2, Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no vehicular access gates, barriers, bollards, chains or other such obstructions shall be erected within a distance of 15 metres of the highway boundary. REASON: To enable a vehicle to stand clear of the highway in order to protect the free and safe passage of traffic including pedestrians in the public highway in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

8) Landscaping No development shall commence on site until a scheme of hard and soft landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the details of which shall include: (a) indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land; (b) details of any trees and hedgerows to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development; (c) all species, planting sizes and planting densities, spread of all trees and hedgerows within or overhanging the site, in relation to the proposed buildings, roads, and other works; (d) finished levels and contours; (e) means of enclosure; (f) hard surfacing materials; (g) minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse and other storage units, signs, lighting etc); (h) retained historic landscape features and proposed restoration, where relevant. (i) programme of implementation Thereafter the development shall be implemented fully in accordance with the approved details and retained in perpetuity. REASON: To enhance the appearance of the development in the interest of the visual amenities of the area and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11

9). External lighting: No external lighting shall be installed on site until plans showing the type of light appliance, the height and position of fitting, illumination levels and light spillage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting approved shall be installed and shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details. REASON: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to minimise unnecessary light spillage above and outside the development site and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11

191

10). Construction Method Statement and Traffic Management Plan: The development shall comply with the Construction Method Statement and Construction Traffic Management Plan, including the routeing of vehicles during period of construction. The approved statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. REASON: To minimise detrimental effects to the neighbouring amenities, the amenities of the area in general, detriment to the natural environment through the risks of pollution and dangers to highway safety, during the construction phase and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11

11). SUDS: No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until such time as a surface water drainage scheme, inclusive of a SuDS treatment train has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Reason To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage and disposal of surface water from the site.

12). No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until such time as details in relation to the management of surface water on site during construction of the development has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Reason To prevent an increase in flood risk, maintain the existing surface water runoff quality, and to prevent damage to the final surface water management systems though the entire development construction phase.

13). No development approved by this planning permission, shall take place until such time as details in relation to the long term maintenance of the sustainable surface water drainage system within the development have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Reason To establish a suitable maintenance regime, that may be monitored over time; that will ensure the long term performance, both in terms of flood risk and water quality, of the sustainable drainage system within the proposed development.

Notes to Applicant:

1. You are advised that this proposal may require separate consent under the Building Regulations and that no works should be undertaken until all necessary consents have been obtained. Advice on the requirements of the Building Regulations can be obtained from the Building Control Section, Harborough District Council (Tel. Market Harborough 821090). As such please be aware that complying with building regulations does not mean that the planning conditions attached to this permission have been discharged and vice versa.

2. Any development using waste or other material for engineering works may require an Environmental Permit, unless it is exempt from the need for a permit. Please contact our National Customer Call Centre (Tel: 03708 506 506) for advice prior to commencing work or to check whether someone is a registered waste carrier on the public register.

3. The vehicular crossing shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority and a licence and specification must be obtained from Leicestershire County Council Highways Department (Tel. (0116) 3050001).

192

4. Details should demonstrate how surface water will be managed on site to prevent an increase in flood risk during the various construction stages of development from initial site works through to completion. This shall include temporary attenuation, additional treatment, controls, maintenance and protection. Details regarding the protection of any proposed infiltration areas should also be provided.

5. Details of the SuDS Maintenance Plan should include for routine maintenance, remedial actions and monitoring of the separate elements of the system, and should also include procedures that must be implemented in the event of pollution incidents within the development site. General Information for Local Planning Authority and Applicant Land Drainage Consent If there are any works proposed as part of an application which are likely to affect flows in a watercourse or ditch, then the applicant may require consent under Section 23 of The Land Drainage Act 1991. This is in addition to any planning permission that may be granted. Guidance on this process and a sample application form can be found at the following: http://www.leicestershire.gov.uk/Flood-risk-management Maintenance Please note, it is the responsibility of the Local Planning Authority under the DEFRA/DCLG legislation (April 2015) to ensure that a system to facilitate the future maintenance of SuDS features can be managed and maintained in perpetuity before commencement of the works.

6. Nesting birds and bats, their roosts and their access to these roosts, are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Therefore, should birds or bats be present in the trees affected by this application, any felling/surgery should be deferred until late summer/autumn.

7. Planning Permission does not give you approval to work on the public highway. Therefore, prior to carrying out any works on the public highway you must ensure all necessary licences/permits/agreements are in place. For further information, please telephone 0116 305 0001. It is an offence under Section 148 and Section 151 of the Highways Act 1980 to deposit mud on the public highway and therefore you should take every effort to prevent this occurring. To erect temporary directional signage you must seek prior approval from the Local Highway Authority in the first instance (telephone 0116 305 0001).

193

Planning Committee Report Applicant: Mr & Mrs Furnell

Application Ref: 18/00170/FUL

Location: 23 The Green, Great Bowden

Proposal: Installation of an entrance driveway and parking area

Application Validated: 29/01/18

Target Date: 26/03/18 (Extension of time agreed)

Consultation Expiry Date: 19/03/18

Site Visit Date: 06/03/18

Case Officer: Janet Buckett

Recommendation

Planning Permission is REFUSED, for the reasons set out below,

1) The loss of 3m of wall and the reduction in height of the remaining wall would have a detrimental impact on the historic established character of the area. It would not preserve the Conservation Area or be consistent with its special character nor reflect the street scene. The setting and character of the designated heritage asset of the Conservation Area and the many surrounding Listed Buildings, and the character and setting of the non-designated heritage asset of 23 The Green would not be protected, conserved or enhanced. This is contrary to Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

2) Inadequate vehicle visibility splays would be provided and turning is not provided within the site. This would result in an unsafe highway situation contrary to Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy and LCC Highway Authority Standing Advice September 2011.

1. Site & Surroundings

1.1 The application site is situated within the attractive village centre of Great Bowden. It is a Conservation Area and the property faces a village green. Along the west and south boundaries of the village green nearly all of the properties are Listed. The property is an attractive non-designated heritage asset predominantly built of red brick with a slate roof.

1.2 In front of the property is a front garden and then an old brick wall with coping adjacent to the pavement with a small wooden pedestrian gate. Adjoining the front wall and adjacent to the pavement is a brick outbuilding and then a high brick wall continues along the rear of the pavement to the west. To the east the lower brick wall continues along in front of the neighbouring properties with only pedestrian openings through them.

194

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

Figure 2: The application site from the village green opposite

195

Figure 3: View when approaching site from the west (google maps)

Figure 4: The houses and front boundary walls opposite the site (google maps)

1.3 The street scene is characterised by designated and non-designated heritage assets with many of the properties having low brick walls along the front boundary.

2. Site History

2.1 There have been no previous planning applications at the site.

196

3. The Application Submission

a) Summary of Proposals

3.1 The proposal is to create a 3m wide opening in the front wall to create a driveway in front of the house for two 2.5m x 5.5m parking spaces. The remaining front wall is to be reduced in height to 600mm to allow for pedestrian visibility.

Figure 5: Existing site layout plan

197

Figure 6: Proposed site layout plan

b) Documents submitted

i. Plans

3.2 The application has been accompanied by the following plans: –

Block Plan and Location Plan drawing no. 1A Outline Survey Site Plan drawing no. 2 Outline Proposals drawing no. 3

c) Pre-application Engagement

3.3 No pre-application was made.

4. Consultations and Representations

4.1 Consultations with technical consultees and the local community were carried out on the application. This occurred on 2nd February 2018, including a site notice posted on the same day. A press notice was published on 15th February 2018. The end of the consultation period was 19th March 2018.

4.2 Firstly, a summary of the technical consultee responses received is set out below. If you wish to view the comments in full, please go to: www.harborough.gov.uk/planning

198

a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees

Great Bowden Parish Council 4.3 No comments received.

LCC Highways 4.4 Referred to Standing Advice.

Planning Officer asked the following question, “The applicant has not/can not provide turning within the site and so cars will either be reversed off the driveway or reversed on to the driveway. The standing advice states that this could be acceptable in a village location. However, though in a village this road is pretty busy with several junctions nearby. There are also always parked cars on the side of the road where the driveway is proposed. Could you let me know your thoughts?”

The following highway advice was received, “It is unlikely that the LHA could demonstrate that the proposal if permitted would result in severe harm to the highway in accordance with paragraph 32 of the NPPF. The LHA can only request turning within developments that access onto roads that carry more than 300 vehicles in the peak hours, classified A or B roads or high speed roads, from a brief review using google I am of the view that The Green, Great Bowden would not meet any of this criteria, that said I may be wrong and if you think otherwise then it may be a requirement for the applicant to provide such evidence. Whilst the parked cars are not ideal they can sometimes slow vehicles down which in this instance would be of benefit when required to reverse onto the highway”.

LCC Principal Historic Buildings Officer 4.5 “I know Great Bowden quite well having been involved in several planning applications over the past few years. The several historic village greens are an attractive attribute that forms part of the unique and distinctive character of this particular conservation area. Clearly any proposals that have the potential to affect these key areas must be considered with great care.

The application property is an attractive vernacular house that by virtue of its age and design appears to meet the definition of a heritage asset as set out in the glossary to the NPPF. The dwelling and its street frontage occupies an important location overlooking one of the historic open spaces noted above and I am in no doubt that it makes a strong, positive contribution to the Great Bowden Conservation Area.

Paragraph 128 of the NPPF states that in determining applications local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage asset affected. Unfortunately the submitted information available to view online does not meet this obligation and it is difficult, therefore, to appreciate fully the justification for or impact of the proposed new access and alterations to what appears to be a historic, brick boundary wall.

Similar front walls, topped by traditional copings and interrupted only by narrow pedestrian gates, are found on neighbouring properties in this heritage sensitive location. Although often relatively low the walls add to the sense of enclosure and continuity and such boundaries are clearly part of the established character and appearance of the conservation area.

Actual details of the proposed alterations to the wall appear to be absent from

199

the submitted information but reducing the height and demolishing a section to form a 3 metre wide opening will not only have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the structure and conservation area, it will result in the loss of historic brickwork. Historic England in their published guidance, Making Changes to Heritage Assets observe that the historic fabric will always be an important part of an asset’s significance.

The existing front garden is an integral part of the integrity of 23 The Green and the attractive environment in which the conservation area is experienced. The precise layout of the proposed parking area has not been provided but in my opinion it is highly likely that the introduction of parked vehicles will be detrimental to the setting of both heritage assets.

When considering this development your authority has an unavoidable statutory duty under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. In this context preservation means doing no harm.

In addition to this overarching legislative obligation National planning policies set out in the NPPF are relevant in this case. Paragraph 132 requires that when considering the impact of a development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. I believe that the level of harm that will be caused in this case should be regarded as less than substantial. This does not mean that it is unimportant, particularly given the statutory duty noted above, but enables you as part of the planning balancing exercise under paragraphs 134 and 138 of the NPPF to weigh the harm to significance of the conservation area against any demonstrable public benefits that can be identified.

If you agree with me that 23 The Green and its historic boundary wall are non- designated heritage assets the effect of the application on their significance should also be taken into account when determining the application. Paragraph 135 states a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

Due to the lack of a submitted justification it is difficult to identify any demonstrable public benefit in this case that might override the permanent damage that will be caused to the Great Bowden Conservation Area or 23 The Green and I hope, therefore, that you will be in a position to resist this Development”.

b) Local Community

4.6 1 letters of objection from Main Street, Great Bowden raising the following points,

- Busy stretch of road near a bend and two junctions. Also a bus route. Cars frequently have to wait for cars from the other direction to pass before proceeding. Having vehicles entering and leaving a property – one way in reverse – will add to the danger and frequently observed near misses. Know the area well. Lots of pedestrians crossing with views obstructed, vehicles speed round the bend, buses stop in middle of the road, will get worse with Airfield Farm development. - The cottage is located in the Conservation Area. Attractive front garden bordered by an old and attractive traditional round topped brick wall. Large part of garden and wall will be lost which will impact severely on the character of the Conservation Area.

200

- Water run off from a hard surfaced garden will add to the risk of flooding/overloaded drains in the centre of the village as already happens from time to time.

4.7 9 letters of support from Market Harborough, Wilbarston, Great Bowden, Rothwell, Middleton and Desborough,

- This road can be busy caused by cars parking continuously on the property side of the road. A driveway will help ease flow of traffic providing a safe pull in place to allow traffic to pass. - A driveway will not have a significant impact on the character of the village being partly covered by a high wall and sufficiently set back. The current garden is functional rather than landscaped so there would be no dramatic change in appearance to alter nature of property or the green. - The view of the property is currently obscured by parked cars. Opening up the front of the property will improve the look of the green and surrounding area. - Benefit to the village. - Owners cars will be taken off the road. - New developments in Great Bowden and Airfield Farm will increase cars coming through, stopping and parking in village. - Increasing the width of the opening and retaining remainder of wall will not detract from the village or the look of the cottage. The cottage is set back far enough from the road to easily fit two cars and retain a front garden. - Will improve parking congestion. Congestion increased since opening of Bowden Stores. - The home owner is trying to address problems they witness daily and to protect their property. Would be less incidents if others followed suit. - There are plenty of other properties close by that have sacrificed some front garden to park off the road – why not this one too? - Find it difficult to park currently. Improving parking problem would be of great benefit to businesses, shoppers and local residents. - Struggle to park. The addition of a driveway and removal of a vehicle on the road is a sensible plan. - All the points raised by the objector occur now. Highlights that vehicles speeding and near misses are the problem and not this proposal. - The objectors point regarding water wall run off can be addressed by retaining some wall and a drainage route or permeable surface. - The round topped brick wall is attractive, though permanently blocked by parked cars. The residents can do what they want to the wall without permission? - Cars are constantly damaged so can see why owners are addressing the issue. Creating space for cars off road would create a solution when no other solutions are forthcoming.

5. Planning Policy Considerations

5.1 Please see above for planning policy considerations that apply to all agenda items.

a) Development Plan

o Harborough District Core Strategy (Adopted November 2011)

5.2 Policy CS11 of the Core Strategy is relevant to this application.

b) Material Planning Considerations o Great Bowden Neighbourhood Plan

201

5.3 Great Bowden Neighbourhood Plan has been through Examination and therefore holds significant weight. Full weight would be applied if the referendum is successful in June 2018.

5.3 Objectives relevant to this application that are set out in the Neighbourhood Plan are,

- To protect the setting of designated and non-designated heritage assets and to avoid harm to the Conservation Area. - Traffic and parking issues will be managed to mitigate safety risks arising from new developments.

The Village Design Statement has been incorporated into the Neighbourhood Plan as supporting information. This states,

“A common characteristic of properties in Great Bowden is the existence of a front garden with a roadside boundary wall, hedge or fence….. Great Bowden is well known for its old brick walls (many still exist, built of local Bowden bricks). These walls come in a variety of heights and many still have the traditional coping, There are some good examples of low front garden walls in front of the cottages opposite the Red Lion Public House and also on the Green”.

The accompanying guidelines state,

“..Old boundaries should be preserved wherever possible and any new development should seek to retain, repair or improve existing walls or hedges”.

“Around the Green…. the road kerbs are still the attractive granite setts, which assist in retaining the link with bygone times”.

o The Framework

5.4 Paragraph 128 states that when determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary.

5.5 Paragraph 132 states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.

5.6 Paragraph 135 states that the effect of an application on the significance of a non- designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

5.7 Paragraph 137 states local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites and within the

202

setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably.

c) Other Relevant Information

o Reason for Committee Decision

5.8 This application is to be determined by Planning Committee as 9 letters of support have been received.

6. Assessment

a) Principle of Development 6.1 The proposed removal of 3m of the front wall will result in the loss of a non- designated heritage asset that contributes to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and to the village street scene. The harm from doing this needs to be balanced against the benefit which would be the creation of parking off the road. There is currently a lot of parking on the road. Two spaces will be created on the driveway for the homeowners but this will only result in one extra parking space in the locality as one space will be lost on the road to provide the access to the driveway.

b) Technical Considerations

1. Appearance and impact on the Conservation Area 6.2 No existing or proposed elevations have been submitted but the proposed site plan is annotated to detail that 3m of the wall will be removed and that the remaining wall will be reduced to 600mm high to allow for visibility. The wall is currently approximately 1.2m high including brick curved coping. The plan also states that the driveway will be constructed of a porous cobble pavier surface.

6.3 The site is in a very attractive part of the Conservation Area and in the centre of the historic village where the majority of the buildings are Listed. The site is opposite a triangle shape village green. Great Bowden’s Conservation Area character statement says “The fragmentation and irregular shape of the greens results in many different angles to the rows and groups of houses, and in many intimate areas within the whole. Although the whole area is large and extension it is this breaking up into many small intimate areas that gives Great Bowden its character”. It is considered that the brick walls along the frontage of this and other properties in the locality contribute to this intimate character. Removing 3m of the brick wall will result in a different feel to this part of the street scene to the detriment of the current intimate character referred to.

6.4 The Neighbourhood Plan Village Design Statement (VDS) details the importance of the boundary walls to adding to the character of the village. It states “A common characteristic of properties in Great Bowden is the existence of a front garden with a roadside boundary wall, hedge or fence….. Great Bowden is well known for its old brick walls (many still exist, built of local Bowden bricks). These walls come in a variety of heights and many still have the traditional coping, there are some good examples of low front garden walls in front of the cottages opposite the Red Lion Public House and also on the Green”. The VDS states that “..Old boundaries should be preserved wherever possible and any new development should seek to retain, repair or improve existing walls or hedges”. The proposal is therefore contrary to the

203

guidance included as part of the Neighbourhood Plan which now carries significant weight as has been through Examination.

6.5 The Principal Historic Buildings Officer advises that the property is an attractive vernacular house and that the dwelling and its street frontage occupy an important location overlooking one of the historic open spaces in the village and makes a strong, positive contribution to the Great Bowden Conservation Area. He advises that similar front walls, topped by traditional copings and interrupted only by narrow pedestrian gates, are found on neighbouring properties in this heritage sensitive location and that these walls, even though relatively low, add to the sense of enclosure and continuity and are part of the established character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

6.6 The removal of 3m of wall and reducing the height of the remainder will have a detrimental impact on the historic established character of the area and will also result in the loss of historic brickwork. It will also not preserve the setting of the non- designated heritage asset of the 23 The Green.

6.7 When considering this development the local planning authority has an unavoidable statutory duty under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. In this context preservation means doing no harm. It is considered that the loss of 3m of wall will do harm.

6.8 Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy states that heritage assets within the District, and their setting, will be protected, conserved and enhanced, ensuring that residents and visitors can appreciate and enjoy them. It states that development in existing Conservation Areas must be consistent with the special character as described in the character statement. Policy CS11 also states that development must be of a scale and design that would not cause damage to the qualities, character and amenity of the areas in which they are situated and should reflect the streetscape.

6.9 The loss of 3m of wall and the reduction in height of the remainder will not be consistent with the special character of the Conservation Area and will not preserve the Conservation Area or reflect the street scene. The setting and character of the designated heritage asset of the Conservation Area and the many surrounding Listed Buildings, and the character and setting of the non-designated heritage asset of 23 The Green will not be protected, conserved or enhanced. This is contrary to Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy. The proposal is also contrary to the Village Design Statement which is part of the Neighbourhood Plan which is a material consideration.

2. Amenity 6.10 The proposed removal of 3m of the front wall, the reduction in height of the remaining front wall and the creation of a driveway is not considered to have a harmful affect on residential amenity. The proposal therefore complies with Policy CS11 of the Core Strategy with regards to safeguarding residential amenity.

3. Highways 6.11 LCC Highways have commented that standing advice should be used. With regards to visibility splays the following guidance is tabled,

204

Likely maximum speed ‘Y’ distance (metres) ‘Y’ distance (metres if (mph) HGVs and buses >5% of traffic flows 15 17 19 20 25 27 25 33 36 30 43 47

In this instance the speed limit is 30mph. However, it is appreciated that speeds may be slower due to there being parked cars. The proposed visibility splays are 21.6m to the west and 19m to the east. This means that the visibility splays are only acceptable if vehicles are travelling at a maximum of 15mph past the site. This can not be guaranteed as the speed limit is 30mph and therefore it is considered that this will lead to an unsafe highway situation.

6.12 Visibility splays are measured at a height of 1.05m above ground level. The remaining wall is to be reduced to 600mm which ensures that this can be achieved but the adjacent outbuilding to the west that abuts the back of the pavement is more than 1.05m high. The wall adjoining that to the west which is constructed next to the pavement is also more than 1.05m high. 24 The Green has a wall along the front of their property which is more than 600mm high. This affects the visibility splays and is outside of the ownership of the applicant.

6.13 Pedestrian visibility splays should be 2m x 2m. This is achieved as the proposed pedestrian visibility splays are 2.5m x 2.5m. The proposed surface material is acceptable and also the size of the two parking spaces.

6.14 With regards to turning the standing advice states, - Turning facilities within the development site should therefore be required on: - roads carrying 300 vehicles in a peak hour (generally classified roads); - less busy roads near to junctions with main roads; - roads with a speed limit above 40mph. Elsewhere (for example on village streets, residential estate roads, cul-de- sac) reversing onto or off the highway may be tolerated.

6.15 The Planning Officer asked LCC Highways if they could look again at the proposal as turning can not be provided in the site and will result in cars reversing onto or off the highway. They replied “It is unlikely that the LHA could demonstrate that the proposal if permitted would result in severe harm to the highway in accordance with paragraph 32 of the NPPF. The LHA can only request turning within developments that access onto roads that carry more than 300 vehicles in the peak hours, classified A or B roads or high speed roads, from a brief review using google I am of the view that The Green, Great Bowden would not meet any of this criteria, that said I may be wrong and if you think otherwise then it may be a requirement for the applicant to provide such evidence. Whilst the parked cars are not ideal they can sometimes slow vehicles down which in this instance would be of benefit when required to reverse onto the highway”. The proposal is on a classified road.

6.16 There are concerns that reversing out on to the classified road at this point between parked cars could result in an unsafe highway situation. The site is near junctions with Main Street, Langton Road, Dingley Road and an access to The Green. Cars coming down Langton Road from the north will come round a corner and potentially find a car slowly reversing out onto the road or off the road.

205

6.17 Letters of support have been received that state that the proposal should be approved. The supporters say that parking is difficult in the area and that creating this driveway will help. In addition to this the area where the driveway is accessed will allow cars to pull in to let others pass.

6.18 The proposal will result in the loss of one parking space on the road and create two private parking spaces on the driveway. In affect the proposal will result in one additional parking space overall.

6.19 It is considered that not withstanding the gain of one parking space that the proposal will result in an unsafe highway situation and that it is contrary to Leicestershire County Council’s Standing Advice and Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

4. Permitted Development 6.20 A supporter has stated that planning permission would not be required to remove or carry out works to the wall. This is not the case. Part 11 Heritage and demolition Class C of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 states that permission is required to demolish whole or any part of a wall in a Conservation Area if it is more than one metre high next to a highway.

d) Sustainable Development 6.21 The Framework identifies three dimensions to sustainable development – economic, social and environmental. Taking each of these in turn the following conclusions can be reached.

o Economic Provides a small amount of economic development in the work required to the wall and the construction of the new driveway.

o Social Provides two parking spaces for the residents of 23 The Green. Results in an unsafe highway situation.

o Environmental The proposal has harmful environmental impacts by virtue of the fact that it does not respect the character of the street scene and does not preserve the Conservation Area or setting of designated and non-designated heritage assets.

7. The Planning Balance / Conclusion 7.1 It needs to be weighed up whether the benefit of creating two parking spaces for the resident of 23 The Green and removing one car from parking on the road outweighs the harm caused by the unsafe highway situation arising from unacceptable visibility splays and cars reversing on to or off the road in this location and the detrimental affect on the setting of the designated heritage asset of the Conservation Area and neighbouring Listed Buildings, the setting of the non-designated heritage asset of the dwelling house and the character of the street scene.

7.2 The benefits and harm of the proposal have been detailed above in the report and these have been weighed up. Overall it is considered that the adverse impacts on heritage, the street scene and highway safety significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

206

Planning Committee Report

Applicant: David Wilson Homes

Application Ref: 18/00220/REM

Location: Land at Kilby Road, Fleckney

Proposal: Erection of 150 dwellings, associated infrastructure and landscaping (Reserved Matters of 16/00592/OUT)

Application Validated: 12.02.2018

Target Date: 14.05.2018

Consultation Expiry Date: 22.03.2018 (Press Notice)

Case Officer: Nick White

Site Visit Dates: 19.02.2018

Recommendation

Planning Permission is APPROVED, for the reasons set out in the report and subject to the appended Planning Condition (Appendix A).

Recommended Justification Statement:

The development hereby approved would achieve a satisfactory layout, scale, landscaping, character and appearance for the site and its surroundings. The development would deliver a satisfactory mix of market and affordable housing types and would provide a satisfactory level of residential amenity for future occupiers, as well as safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents outside the site. The development would not adversely affect local highway safety, and would not cause unacceptable harm to ecological, archaeological and arboricultural interests. The development, therefore, accords with Policies CS1, CS2, CS3, CS5, CS8, CS9, CS11, CS12 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy and no other material considerations indicate that the policies of the development plan should not prevail. The decision has been reached taking into account Paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

1. Site & Surroundings

1.1 The site comprises four fields maintained as pasture, set on the north side of Kilby Road at the western edge of the settlement. The principal fields are defined in all instances by tall native boundary hedgerows with mature tree cover, except for the eastern boundaries that are defined by the fencing and vegetation of the rear gardens to the properties fronting Coleman Road.

1.2 A number of the fields have been subdivided with post and wire fencing to create paddocks, with associated outbuildings set at the southern boundary of the site alongside Kilby Road.

207

1.3 Beyond its immediate boundaries the site is bounded by the settlement to the east and Kilby Road to the south. To the south, west and north are areas of open arable farmland (in agricultural-business use) that are distinct in character from the contained pasture land setting that defines the site.

1.4 The site does not provide any public access other than public footpath (C41), which runs east-to-west through the site, as seen here:

(Source: HDC Uniform Maps. Dashed lines indicate Public Rights of Way.)

1.5 Outline Planning Permission (16/00592/OUT) for up to 150 dwellings was granted on the site on 20.12.2017, with means of access approved and all other matters reserved for future approval.

2. Site History

Application No. Decision / Date Nature of Development

16/00592/OUT APPROVED Outline application for the erection of up to 150 20.12.2017 dwellings and associated access; earthworks; drainage works; structural landscaping; formal and informal open space; car parking; site remediation; and all other ancillary and enabling works (access to be considered)

3. The Application Submission

a) Summary of Proposals

3.1 The application seeks detailed Reserved Matters approval for the 150 dwellings granted Planning Permission on this site by 16/00592/OUT.

208

3.2 Details of Access were approved as part of the Outline planning application. An adoptable-standard T-junction access onto Kilby Road in the southeast corner of the site is approved.

3.3 The outstanding Reserved Matters relate to (1) Appearance, (2) Landscaping, (3) Layout and (4) Scale. Effectively, information and plans have now been submitted with regard to the detailed site layout, detailed dwelling and garage designs (style, form, scale, mass, proportions and materials), landscaping (including such things as surfacing materials and boundary treatments), open space and play areas and drainage engineering features (balancing lagoon).

Proposed Planning Layout plan (Rev L):

b) Schedule of Plans / Documents for Assessment

3.4 Layouts Planning Layout H7170/100/01 Rev L External Materials Layout H7170/500/01 Rev E Boundary Treatments Layout H7170/500/02 Rev D Surface Treatments Layout H7170/500/03 Rev D Eaves & Chimney Allocation Layout H7170/500/04 Rev D

Landscaping Soft Landscape Proposals (Sheet 1 of 4) GL0553 01E Soft Landscape Proposals (Sheet 2 of 4) GL0553 02E Soft Landscape Proposals (Sheet 3 of 4) GL0553 03E Soft Landscape Proposals (Sheet 4 of 4) GL0553 04E

209

Play Area Proposals GL0553 05C

Engineering General Arrangement Layout H7170-100-01 Rev H

House Types (Brick Clipped Eaves) H349---7 (AS) Floor Plans H349.01 H349---7 (AS) Elevations H349.02 H349---7 (OPP) Floor Plans H349.03 H349---7 (OPP) Elevations H349.04 H403--C7 (AS) Floor Plans H403.01 H403--C7 (AS) Elevations H403.02 H403--C7 (OPP) Floor Plans H403.03 H403--C7 (OPP) Elevations H403.04 H417---7 (AS) Floor Plans H417.01 H417---7 (AS) Elevations H417.02 H417---7 (OPP) Floor Plans H417.03 H417---7 (OPP) Elevations H417.04 H421---7 (AS) Floor Plans H421.01 H421---7 (AS) Elevations H421.02 H421---7 (OPP) Floor Plans H421.03 H421---7 (OPP) Elevations H421.04 H433---7 (OPP) Floor Plans H433.03 (BCE) H433---7 (OPP) Elevations H433.04 (BCE) H436--X7 (OPP) Floor Plans H436.03 H436--X7 (OPP) Elevations H436.04 H469--X7 (AS) Floor Plans H469.01 H469--X7 (AS) Elevations H469.02 H469--X7 (OPP) Floor Plans H469.03 H469--X7 (OPP) Elevations H469.04 H588--X7 (OPP) Floor Plans H588.07 H588--X7 (OPP) Elevations H588.08 H588--X7 (AS) Floor Plans H588.01 H588--X7 (AS) Elevations H588.02 P204-EC7 (AS) Floor Plans P204.E.01 P204-EC7 (AS) Elevations P204.E.02 P204-EC7 (OPP) Floor Plans P204.E.03 P204-EC7 (OPP) Elevations P204.E.04 P341--D7 (AS) Floor Plans P341.D.01 P341--D7 (AS) Elevations P341.D.02 P341--D7 (OPP) Floor Plans P341.D.03 P341--D7 (OPP) Elevations P341.D.04 P341--D7 (AS) Floor Plans P341.D.05 P341--D7 (AS) Elevations P341.D.06 P341-E-7 (AS) Floor Plans P341.E.05 P341-E-7 (AS) Elevations P341.E.06 P341-E-7 (AS) Floor Plans P341.E.01 P341-E-7 (AS) Elevations P341.E.02 P341-E-7 (AS) Floor Plans P341.E.03 P341-E-7 (AS) Elevations P341.E.04 P382-E-7 (AS) Floor Plans P382 E.01 P382-E-7 (AS) Elevations P382 E.02 P382-E-7 (OPP) Floor Plans P382 E.03 P382-E-7 (OPP) Elevations P382 E.04 SF11 GAN_FAN4 (AS) Floor Plans SF11.E.01

210

SF11 GAN_FAN4 (AS) Elevations SF11.E.02 SF11 GAN_FAN4 (OPP) Floor Plans SF11.E.03 SF11 GAN_FAN4 (OPP) Elevations SF11.E.04 SH50—7 (AS) Floor Plans SH50E.01 (BCE) SH50—7 (AS) Elevations SH50E.02 (BCE) SH50—7 (OPP) Floor Plans SH50E.03 (BCE) SH50—7 (OPP) Elevations SH50E.04 (BCE) SH50-I-7 (AS) Floor Plans SH50.I.05 SH50-I-7 (AS) Elevations SH50-I-06 SH52-E-7 (AS) Floor Plans SH52E.01 (BCE) SH52-E-7 (AS) Elevations SH52E.02 (BCE) SH52-E-7 (OPP) Floor Plans SH52E.03 (BCE) SH52-E-7 (OPP) Elevations SH52E.04 (BCE) SH52-I-7 (AS) Floor Plans SH52.I.05 SH52-I-7 (AS) Elevations SH52.I.06 SH52-I-7 (OPP) Floor Plans SH52.I.07 SH52-I-7 (OPP) Elevations SH52.I.08 SH54-E-7 (AS) Floor Plans SH54.E.05 SH54-E-7 (AS) Elevations SH54.E.06 SH54-E-7 (OPP) Floor Plans SH54.E.07 SH54-E-7 (OPP) Elevations SH54.E.08 SH55-E-7 (OPP) Floor Plans SH55.E.07 SH55-E-7 (OPP) Elevations SH55.E.08 T310-E-7 (AS) Floor Plans T310.E.01 T310-E-7 (AS) Elevations T310.E.02 T310-E-7 (OPP) Floor Plans T310.E.03 T310-E-7 (OPP) Elevations T310.E.04

House Types (Open Rafter Eaves): H421---7 (OPP) Floor Plans H421.03(OTR) H421---7 (OPP) Elevations H421.04(OTR) H421---7 (AS) Floor Plans H421.05(OTR) H421---7 (AS) Elevations H421.06(OTR) H421---7 (AS) Floor Plans H421.07(OTR) H421---7 (AS) Elevations H421.08(OTR) H433---7 (AS) Floor Plans H433.09 H433---7 (AS) Elevations H433.10 H436--X7 (OPP) Floor Plans H436.11 H436--X7 (OPP) Elevations H436.12 H436--X7 (AS) Floor Plans H436.05 H436--X7 (AS) Elevations H436.06 H436--X7 (OPP) Floor Plans H436.07 H436--X7 (OPP) Elevations H436.08 H588--7 (OPP) Floor Plans H588.15 H588--7 (OPP) Elevations H588.16 H588--7 (AS) Floor Plans H588.09 H588--7 (AS) Elevations H588.10 H588--7 (OPP) Floor Plans H588.11 H588--7 (OPP) Elevations H588.12 P341--D7 (OPP) Floor Plans P341.D.15 P341--D7 (OPP) Elevations P341.D.16 P341--D7 (AS) Floor Plans P341.D.09 P341--D7 (AS) Elevations P341.D.10 P341--D7 (OPP) Floor Plans P341.D.11 P341--D7 (OPP) Elevations P341.D.12

211

P341--WD7 (AS) Floor Plans P341.WD.05 P341--WD7 (AS) Elevations P341.WD.06 P341--WD7 (OPP) Floor Plans P341.WD.07 P341--WD7 (OPP) Elevations P341.WD.08

House Types (Soffit & Fascia Eaves): CE2 Edwalton (AS) Floor Plans CE2.01 CE2 Edwalton (AS) Elevations CE2.02 DWB2 1E-7 (AS) Floor Plans DWB2.1E.01 DWB2 1E-7 (AS) Elevations DWB2.1E.02 DWB2 1E-7 (OPP) Floor Plans DWB2.1E.03 DWB2 1E-7 (OPP) Elevations DWB2.1E.04

Garage Types: LDG2H7 Floor Plans & Elevations LDG2H7.01 LSG1H7 Floor Plans & Elevations LSG1H7.01 LTG2H7 Floor Plans & Elevations LTG2H7.01 SDG1H7 Floor Plans & Elevations SDG1H7.01

Standard Details: 1200mm High Screen Wall Detail SD/600/01 900mm Post and Rail Fence SD/600/31 1800mm Brick Screen Wall SD14-014 1800mm Close Boarded Timber Fence SD14-015 1800mm Privacy Gate Detail SD14-016 450mm Knee Rail Fence SD14-018

Miscellaneous: Landscape Management Plan (Revision A) Location Plan S7170/100/05 Indicative Master Plan H7170/014/01 Reserved Matters Justification Statement (January 2017)

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

3.5 Since validation of the application, additional information and amended plans have been submitted by the Applicant.

3.6 The final amended plans and documents for which the Applicant is seeking approval are listed above (as 3.4).

3.7 The amended plans / additional information relates to the following:

 At Officer request, a different road surfacing material (and more recently speed hump control measures) has been introduced at the 2 points where the public right of way crosses the road, in order to alert drivers, slow speeds and enhance safety.

212

 A 1 metre wide service corridor and 4x gates have been added to the site perimeter along the northern and western site boundaries, in order to separate private plot boundaries from the existing hedgerows and enable access for the landscape management company to maintain the hedgerow / trees.

 A new close board fence has been added to the site boundary adjacent to No.5 Shoulbard. This is an informal private agreement between the Applicant and the occupier of No.5, in response to a representation made by No.5 direct to the Applicant. The Applicant has endeavoured to find a solution to this neighbour’s concerns. Although the proposed fence is located outside of the red line of the site (and is, therefore, not subject to planning control under this application), it has been shown on the plans to offer assurance to this neighbour. The plans show that the fence would be located behind existing foliage (which is marked as being retained in the development); it should not be fully exposed or visually harmful from within the development site.

 2 metre gaps have been added around the lagoon knee rail for maintenance access.

 Garden boundary treatment (fencing) to plots 38, 48 and 49-56 has been added, to demarcate the plots and negate possibility of removal of existing “dense foliage”.

213

 Rear garden gates have been added to plots 95-101.

 Garage roofs have been altered from gabled designs to hipped roof designs. The Applicant reports that this is owing to customer feedback “with gable ended garage roofs blocking sunlight into gardens or dwelling windows.”

 Written clarification has been provided by the Applicant that a NEAP (and not a LEAP) is to be provided. An annotation on the Play Area Proposals Plan has been amended to accord with this. This update has been reviewed by the HDC Neighbourhood and Green Spaces Officer, who is now “happy with that explanation of the sizes of the play area.”

 Amended brick and tile materials are proposed. This follows Applicant availability issues and Officer advice about enhancing the palette of materials.

 Minor highway and layout amendments have been made to accord with the 12.04.18 LCC Highway Authority Consultation Response (amendments made to achieve adoptable road standards).

 Amended Layout, surface treatment, landscape, play area, elevation and associated plans have been submitted to be consistent with the above changes.

d) Pre-application Engagement

3.8 Prior to submission, the Applicant sought pre-application advice from the Local Planning Authority (PREAPP/17/00288). Officers provided informal advice regarding:

 ecological considerations and layout;  parking and turning area ease of use;  enhancing the safety of the two places where the PROW crosses the road (e.g., introduce surfacing differentiation to alert drivers);  residential amenity guidance (distance separations, etc.);  boundary fences and walls (avoid boundary walls and fences that jut out into the streetscene, particularly if they have sharp angles, replace some sections of close boarded timber fencing with timber post and rail fencing);  enhancing pedestrian desire lines and ease of walking;  market housing mixes (no. of beds) & the HDC evidence base for the mix of housing types;  chimneys should be introduced;  the sub station should be placed more discreetly;  general design advice regarding layouts, dwelling and landscaping details.

3.9 The Applicant has been responsive to Officer advice regarding recommended amendments / improvements to the proposal.

214

4. Consultations and Representations

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

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

a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees

4.3 Severn Trent Water

Consulted. No comments received.

4.4 Leicestershire County Council, Environment and Transport Department, Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA)

Extract from 02.03.18 comments:

“The applicant has submitted the aforementioned reserved matters application covering landscaping and infrastructure works pursuant to outline planning permission 16/00592/OUT which was granted on the 20th December 2017.

From review of the granted outline permission and the layout submitted as part of this reserved matters application the LLFA considers the proposals acceptable.

Leicestershire County Council as LLFA advises the Local Planning Authority that:  The proposed reserved matters are considered acceptable to Leicestershire County Council as the LLFA.”

4.5 Natural England

Refers to their comments and recommended Condition submitted as part of the Outline planning application 16/00592/OUT consultation process.

4.6 Leicestershire County Council, Environment and Transport Department, Green Infrastructure Team (Developer Contributions)

Consulted. No comments received.

4.7 Leicestershire County Council, Environment and Transport Department, Highway Authority (LCC HA)

On 12.04.18 the LCC HA returned comments raising some minor issues with the internal road design in terms of its adoptability.

The Applicant has submitted amended plans (on 19.04.18) and responded to the full LCC HA comments as follows. LCC HA comments are in “speech marks”, followed by the Applicant’s response in italics.

“To alleviate any potential priority issues at the junction adjacent to plots 12 and 43 the LHA would expect to see the road bend in these locations as in keeping with those bends seen adjacent to plots 70-71 and plot 122 with the footway then crossing

215

over at this location from plot 12 towards plot 19. The turning head that is currently serving plots 16, 18 and 13 would then serve these plots as a private drive.” Junction amended accordingly and cul-de-sac between plots 12 and 18 omitted. Private drive length increased with fire appliance turning facility added (a swept path analysis has been carried out to ensure compliance). Plots 18 and 19 repositioned, and plot 27 changed from P341-WD7 to P341-D7 to accommodate the changes.

“The plan shows lengths of roads that would exceed the appropriate distance between speed control measures. Speed Control measures will need to be in accordance with the Leicestershire Highways Design guide part 3 Design Section DG5: Speed Control.” Block paved change of surface areas changed to raised tables. Tables to speed control bends omitted and new tables added to highway of various lengths so that the 60m distance between speed control measures is not compromised (an assessment of the proposed raised tables has been undertaken to ensure they are not in proximity to private drives, shared drives or junctions).

“The speed control measures that are adjacent to plots 70-71 and plot 122 wouldn't be necessary and the bend in these locations would serve as a speed control measure.” Noted – highway geometry has been designed as such to provide speed reduction measures. Small area of block paving retained on the inside of the bends to allow for larger vehicles to manoeuvre the bend without mounting the kerb.

“Please ensure forward visibility throughout the site is 25m on bends, junctions, highway and footways. Visibility Envelope must be within the highway in accordance with Leicestershire Highways Design Guide part 3, DG1. As the layout stands there will be issues with visibility outside plots 115 and 122.” Forward visibility now shown on the layout. Visibility shown is in accordance with the Manual For Streets 15mph requirements. Highway geometry has been designed as such to provide speed reduction measures and a 20mph design speed in this area should therefore not be applicable.

“A break is required in the private drive fronting plots 102 to 112 to avoid creating a through route for vehicles.” Whilst a break and landscaping was originally shown between the private drives, a 450mm knee rail fence has also been added to further delineate the break.

“A 2m footway should be included following on from the footway adjacent to plot 150 and running south towards Kilby Road along the eastern edge of the balancing lagoon. It is felt that this would form part of the pedestrian desire line. With the inclusion of this footway the tactile paving at the crossing points on both sides of the road along this route could be removed.” Amended as per the comments.

Given the nature of the above issues, and the comprehensive written response and plan amendments by the Applicant, re-consultation with the LCC HA is not considered to be necessary.

4.8 Leicestershire County Council Library Services (Developer Contribution)

Consulted. No comments received.

216

4.9 Leicestershire County Council, Civic Amenities (waste disposal) (Developer Contribution)

Consulted. No comments received.

4.10 Leicestershire County Council Ecology

Comments received 07.03.18:

“The submitted layout differs form the outline masterplan in several respects; chiefly in the proximity of houses/garages and back gardens to the retained hedgerows along the northern and western boundaries. On the outline plan, the majority of these hedges were buffered by a strip of grassland alongside an estate road. This is an effective way of ensuring the hedgerows and the hedgerow trees are maintained and managed as integral features and local wildlife corridors, ensuring they continue to act as landscape buffers to the surrounding landscape and screening to the edge of village development.

I felt the outline masterplan was minimal but just acceptable in its provision of compensatory landscape and habitat features. The current layout is worse and can in no way be said to represent the required net gain for biodiversity. This is because the important northern and western hedges and the trees within them will be severely compromised through forming back garden boundaries. This will lead to piecemeal management, loss of some sections, loss or mutilation of trees overhanging gardens, and breaches in the wildlife corridor and landscape screen.

One of the 2 Local Wildlife Site veteran trees on site, along the northern boundary, was shown with a protective buffer zone on the outline plan; now it is show as partially within someone's garden; this will surely lead to its loss in the near future. The same is true of other boundary trees; previously on the outline masterplan these were within a buffer strip, now they are in someone's garden

It is not acceptable, and in my view will lead to an unnecessary net loss in biodiversity from this development.

I have referred to the decision notice for the outline application, and have copied part of the opening 'Statement of Reason for Granting of Planning Permission' below:

'The development would through loss of this greenfield land result in limited and localised harm to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. However, this harm can be reduced in time through robust landscape mitigation.'

I fail to see how this will be achieved; landscape mitigation along the northern and western boundaries is minimal, and could never be described as robust. The existing hedgerows and boundary trees that would provide some buffering and screening are completely compromised by the layout.

Whilst the outline application layout was far from perfect, it still allowed for retention and future protection of much of the existing northern and western hedges - which could be considered 'robust landscape mitigation'. To depart from this principle in the way shown on the submitted reserved matters layout is unacceptable.

I recommend refusal of this layout and a return to a layout that is in accordance with the outline masterplan AND the 'Statement of Reason for Granting of Planning Permission', and which gives adequate and robust landscape mitigation to protect

217

the boundary hedges and trees - especially the veteran tree along the N boundary, which is of Local Wildlife site quality.”

4.11 Leicestershire County Council Archaeology

Consulted. No comments received.

4.12 Leicestershire Police (Developer Contribution)

Consulted. No comments received.

4.13 East Leicestershire & Rutland Clinical Commissioning Group (Developer Contribution)

Consulted. No comments received.

4.14 HDC Technical Services (Drainage Engineer)

Consulted. No comments received.

4.15 HDC Waste Management

Consulted. No comments received.

4.16 HDC Neighbourhood & Green Spaces Officer (Developer Contribution)

09.03.18 comments:

“Landscape Management Plan:

The LMP is for a period of 20 years. There is a review at 5 years intervals, with LPA approval of any new maintenance regime.

The requirements for maintenance are satisfactory for amenity areas, shrub , tree and existing planting

LEAP maintenance – RoSPA recommends a minimum of weekly for visual inspection. The LMP allows some flexibility for more regular inspections if the Play Area is heavily used.

Landscape Plans:

The specification for preparation of planted and turfed areas are satisfactory.

The species used, sizes and locations are all satisfactory

Play Area:

The Play Area is indicated as a LEAP. The site generates the requirement for a NEAP. The proposals seem to indicate sufficient play value to meet the NEAP requirements, but the area may be undersized. Clarification is required.”

Following clarification from the Applicant, further comments were received dated 22.03.18:

218

“I note the comments by William Hodgson and am happy with that explanation of the sizes of the play area.

I have no additional comments on the remainder of the plans.”

4.17 HDC Environmental Services (Contaminated Land and Air Quality Officer)

Consulted. No comments received.

4.18 HDC Community Facilities (Developer Contribution)

Comments received 01.03.18:

“As this is a REM application, no new Community Facilities Request will be made. The request made in the original application (16/00592/OUT) still stands.”

4.19 HDC Housing Enabling and Community Infrastructure Officer (Developer Contribution)

Comments received 20.02.18:

“I am attaching my prior comments for your reference which are still relevant.

In addition to this I would comment as follows:

The proposed unit mix has been discussed with Helen Bareford – DWH – and the same unit mix as presented to Derwent Living Potential RP partner:

On a scheme providing 45 AH units we would accept 5 bungalows being provided on a 1 for 2 basis (3x 1 bed bungalows and 2x 2 bed bungalows.)

This would then mean 40 units would need to be provided on site, inc. 5 bungalows. The bungalows will be restricted to over 55 years age.

Therefore the 60 / 40 % is equal to: 60% = 24 units Affordable rent and 40% = 16 units Intermediate or Shared ownership.

TYPE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS 60% = 24 UNITS 1 BED APARTMENT 6 = AR 1 BED BUNGALOW 3 = AR 2 BED BUNGALOW 2 = AR 2 BED HOUSE 9 = AR 3 BED HOUSE 2 = AR 3 BED HOUSE 4 BED HOUSE 2 = AR

TYPE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS 40% =16 1 BED APARTMENT 1 BED BUNGALOW 2 BED BUNGALOW 2 BED HOUSE 5 = INTERMEDIATE 3 BED HOUSE 9 = INTERMEDIATE 3 BED HOUSE 2 = INTERMEDIATE

219

Clustering and AH unit location: We do not advocate individual pepper potting of AH units through out the development site. Equally we do not accept all the AH units be provided in any one location. 3 -4 clusters of AH units spread throughout the development site would be appropriate in achieving a balanced community and an equitable approach of tenures for this proposed development.

AH Triggers for purposes of the S106 Agreement: 50% AH units to be provided prior to occupations of 50% of market dwellings. The remaining 50% prior to 75% of market dwellings.

Consultation with Harborough’s RP Partners: I would advise the Applicant to continue dialogue with our RP partners to gauge their interest in this scheme and the proposed mix, advice of clusters, etc.

Any differing proposals presented by an interested RP in this AH scheme would be considered by HDC. The Applicant is advised to keep a evidence trail of consultations with RPs and responses received.

RP contact list is also attached.

I have nothing further to add.”

4.20 Kilby Parish Council

“Kilby Parish Council wishes to make the following comments with the regard to the above Planning Application for Approval of Reserved Matters:

Whilst (reluctantly) accepting that the Outline Planning Application (16/00592/OUT) for the above development has been approved, we remain extremely concerned regarding the impact of increased traffic passing through Kilby village. The approval of the development, in principle, means that we are unable to comment further on the effects following occupation of the development. However, we note that Condition 11 of the Planning Permission document requires submission and approval of a Construction Method Statement, which covers amongst other things: i) hours of work on site, including deliveries and removal of materials; l) details of the routing of construction traffic. No such document has been submitted with the current Planning Application and we would strongly urge that these matters remain subject to Planning Authority approval, by the imposition of a further planning condition.

We are aware that local residents and Fleckney Parish Council are strongly opposed to the routing of vehicles delivering and removing materials from site using Fleckney village, especially Kilby Road and Coleman Road, as an access route. Likewise, in Kilby, there are major issues with road width and parking, with a 20mph speed limit imposed, as well as the location of the primary school on Main Street. We would also remind yourselves and the Highway Authority that Spinney Road, Main Street and Fleckney Road have a 7.5 tonne weight limit (except for access) imposed, as well as forming part of the Arriva 49 bus route. Therefore, we are anxious that requirements for discharge of Condition 11 include measures to reduce risks to vulnerable road users, including pedestrians (especially children) and cyclists, prevent damage to the highway infrastructure (carriageway, footways, street furniture) & buildings, minimise noise, vibration and dust nuisance, and actively manage congestion. Ideally, we are asking for contractor’s vehicles to be required to use alternative routes, although we reluctantly accept this may not always be possible, due to the restrictions imposed by

220

rail/canal bridges on some of these. At the very least, we expect to see vehicle movements restricted to avoid morning and evening rush hours and, especially, at the start and end of the school day, which is when safety risks and congestion are at their maximum.

We would ask that the above comments are given serious consideration. Whilst Kilby does not lie within Harborough District, we are nonetheless seriously affected by developments such as this one, due to our proximity and location on one of the principal road accesses to Fleckney.”

4.21 Fleckney Parish Council

Consulted. No comments received.

4.22 Blaby District Council

Consulted. No comments received.

4.23 Kibworth Secondary School (Academy)

Consulted. No comments received.

b) Local Community Representations

4.24 7 objections have been received from members of the public based on the original plans.

4.25 Given the types of the amendments which have been made to the plans, their minor nature and their relevance to consultee and public comments, re-consultation with neighbours and other consultees has not been undertaken, except in a small number of specific instances (for example, Landscape Management Plan amendments made in response to the HDC Green Spaces Officer’s consultation comments.)

4.26 A summary of the public representations follows:

Design

 There appears to have been little or no attempt to integrate the development into existing built environment and the layout clearly has a significant adverse effect upon us as existing residents through loss of privacy.

Ecology

 The development is bound to have a negative impact on the local fauna.  In spite of DWH stating they will keep the trees and hedges on the site, there is no guarantee the mature trees will be sufficiently protected during building work.

Flooding

 Concerns that the holding lagoon would not cope with the quantity of water coming from the new development.  Concerns about additional output to existing storm drains exacerbating existing flooding.

221

Highways

 Concerns about highway safety impacts, access, parking and congestion.  The proposals for internal circulation within the site and onto both Coleman road and Kilby Road are unacceptable and will create conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicular movements thereby creating a considerable safety hazard.  The proposal will exacerbate dangerous road conditions in Kilby.  Coleman Road will be used as a short cut for traffic from the proposed development heading to Leicester Road.  The proposed site of development is very large and has limited road frontage, so we would ask that consideration be made about how and where construction vehicles and staff would gain access to the site for unloading and parking without causing a highway hazard or inconveniencing neighbours as has been the case for the previous Bellway development.

Infrastructure

 The village infrastructure will struggle. Facilities and services in the village are currently at capacity.  To build on more open countryside, as would be the case with the proposed development by DWH, would ruin the dynamic of the village and potentially turn Fleckney into a poorly planned, overcrowded small town.

Neighbouring Amenity

 The proposal will cause complete lack of privacy due to houses being built at the bottom of my garden (no.82 Coleman Road).  As the rear of my house and garden faces West there will be a considerable loss of Light and Sunlight from the early evening onwards (no.82 Coleman Road).  The main impact of the development will be instead of seeing open countryside, Trees, Green Hedges Horses and all sorts of wildlife all we will see are Brick Walls and Ugly Roofs (no.82 Coleman Road).  The noise and disturbance will be horrendous after living in quiet countryside for 40 plus years. I live in a village for peace and quiet and Developers are turning them into Towns (no.82 Coleman Road).  The landscaping alongside our rear boundary comprises of just 3 trees which are deciduous and between 450 cm and 650 cm in height, and will do little if anything to mitigate overlooking from the many first floor windows to be facing us (no.72 Coleman Road).

 Should the unthinkable happen and the application be approved, we would also like to request that, the council consider using its powers to enforce controlled hours of operation and other restrictions that might make the duration of the works more bearable (The Meadows, Kilby Road).

Principle of Development

 This Development is beyond the end of village line as per the last existing houses both on Kilby and Leicester Roads so they are applying to build on what I believe is open countryside.

[Planning Officer Note: Many of the above objections relate to material planning considerations which were assessed / determined as part of the Outline Planning Application.]

222

5. Planning Policy Considerations

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

a) Development Plan

5.2 Section 38(3)(b) of the 2004 Act defines the DP as the DP documents (taken as a whole) that have been adopted or approved in that area.

5.3 The DP for Harborough comprises:

 The Harborough District Core Strategy, adopted November 2011; and

 The saved/retained polices of the Harborough District Local Plan (HDLP), adopted April 2001.

5.4 Harborough District Core Strategy

The Core Strategy (CS) was adopted in November 2011 and covers the period from 2006 to 2028. The following aspects of the CS are notably relevant to this application.

Policy CS1: Spatial Strategy Policy CS2: Delivering New Housing Policy CS3: Delivering Housing Choice and Affordability Policy CS5: Providing Sustainable Transport Policy CS8: Protecting and Enhancing Green Infrastructure Policy CS9: Addressing Climate Change Policy CS10: Addressing Flood Risk Policy CS11: Promoting Design and Built Heritage Policy CS12: Delivering Development and Supporting Infrastructure Policy CS17: Countryside, Rural Centres and Rural Villages

5.5 Fleckney Neighbourhood Plan

The Fleckney Neighbourhood Area has been designated. Given the early stage of the Neighbourhood Plan – without policies, consultation, Examination and Referendum having occurred – very little weight can be attached to the Neighbourhood Plan process at this time.

b) Material Planning Considerations

5.6 Material considerations include any consideration relevant to the circumstances which has a bearing on the use or development of land. The material considerations to be taken in to account when considering the merits of this application include the DP referred to above, the National Planning Policy Framework, the national Planning Policy Guidance, further materially relevant legislation, together with responses from consultees and representations received from all other interested parties in relation to material planning matters.

223

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

5.8 National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

5.9 Supplementary Planning Guidance

In March 2003, a series of guidance notes were adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) to the 2001 Harborough District Local Plan. They cover a range of topics, for example layout and design issues. The Council agreed to retain the SPGs and link them to CS policies as applicable.

The following saved SPG Notes are considered to be most relevant:

SPG Note 1: Design Principles to be Applied in Harborough District SPG Note 2: Residential Development – Major Housing Sites SPG Note 5: Extensions to Dwellings SPG Note 9: Landscape and New Development SPG Note 10: Trees and Development SPG Note 11: Hedges and Development SPG Note 13: Crime Prevention and Reduction SPG Note 15: Requirements for the Provision of Land for Outdoor Play Space in New Residential Development SPG Note 19: Development and Flood Risk

5.10 5 Year Housing Land Supply Statement

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

The most up to date report (dated 20 December 2017) covers the period from 01 October 2017 to 30 September 2022 and demonstrates that the Council has a 4.53 year supply.

[Planning Officer Note: Although 150 houses have been approved on this site in Outline, the purpose of highlighting the 5 year supply shortfall in the District is to underline the importance that the LPA assists in bringing forward sustainable housing development without delay.]

c) Emerging Local Plan & Evidence Base

5.11 Harborough District Emerging Local Plan

Given the advancing stage of the ELP (now submitted for Examination), some weight is attached to its content. No significant conflict between its content and the current proposal is identified.

5.12 The following emerging local plan evidence base is relevant to this application:

• Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA; 2014) [relates to housing mix needs].

• Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA; January 2017; GL Hearn) [relates to housing mix needs].

224

• Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2015 Update – Site Assessment Companion Guide – Rural Centres (May 2016): Land Parcel References: “A/FK/HSG/06 - Land to the north of Kilby Road, Fleckney” and “A/FK/HSG/09 - Land off Kilby Road, Fleckney” [an assessment of potential site constraints and opportunities].

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

5.13 The ‘Rural Centres Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Capacity Study’ was commissioned by Harborough District Council in March 2014. The six settlements included in the Study are; Billesdon, Fleckney, Great Glen, Husbands Bosworth, Kibworth and Ullesthorpe. The Study provides a detailed analysis of the landscape sensitivity and capacity of land around the edges of these settlements, with a view to assessing potential suitability to accommodate future development (focussing on residential development). The Study forms part of the evidence base for the preparation of the new Local Plan for Harborough District and its findings are being considered, alongside other relevant evidence, to determine the suitability of settlements to accommodate future development.

5.14 In the associated “Rural Centres Landscape Sensitivity Appraisal (Fleckney) – Survey Form”, the application site (Land Parcels No.20 and No.21) was graded as having a “high” landscape capacity to accommodate development. Residential development was judged to be most appropriate in this location (rather than, for example, commercial development), subject to a range of mitigation measures. For example, with regard to Land Parcel No.20, the Survey Form advises the following mitigation measures:

 Retention of existing landscape features and vegetation The tall and clipped hedgerows with mature trees along the perimeters of the Parcel should be retained and strengthened as screening for any development proposals.  Important views to be retained There are no particular views to the site that need to be retained. However, consideration should be given to the impact on views across adjacent countryside from the rear of houses on Coleman Road.  Retention of existing routes through the site The public footpath running along the southern boundary would need to be retained and the surface upgraded.  Ground modelling The plateau site would not require any ground modelling.  Additional planting Additional planting is likely to be necessary to reinforce the northern boundary of the Parcel depending on whether housing is also provided in Parcel 19. Street trees within any layout should be provided and planting would also be considered appropriate on the eastern boundary to soften views from residential properties.  Maximum building heights Existing buildings in this locality are generally 2 storeys high. Proposals in this Parcel should be of a similar height.  Development layout Any development of this Parcel would need to be accessed from Coleman Road and probably utilising the existing hammerhead to the south-east corner. This route would also involve a minor incursion into Parcel 21. The development

225

would need to relate to the existing residential areas to form a connection with the rest of the village but would include an enhanced provision of public realm.  Building materials Materials could reflect the local vernacular, including: red brick and slate roof tiles. However in this context a more contemporary approach could also be achieved due to the enclosure of the site and separation from the more traditional parts of the village.  Open space provision and green infrastructure The right of way within this Parcel could be incorporated into a green corridor alongside the development connecting with the network of public rights of way in the wider countryside to the north-west.

[Planning Officer Note: the mitigation measures outlined in the Survey Forms for Land Parcels No.20 and No.21 create a foundation context for assessing the current Reserved Matters application. It is considered that the proposal complies with all key aspects of the Survey Forms.]

d) Other Relevant Documents

The following documents should be noted:

5.15 The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, S.I. No.948 (as amended)

5.16 ODPM (DCLG) Circular 11/95 Annex A - Use of Conditions in Planning Permission

5.17 ODPM (DCLG) Circular 06/2005 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System)

5.18 Building for Life 12 (Third edition - January 2015)

5.19 Leicestershire County Council Planning Obligations Policy (December 2014)

5.20 Leicestershire County Council Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3)

5.21 Leicestershire County Council Highways Authority 6Cs (Highways) Design Guide

5.22 Harborough District Council Provision for Open Space, Sport & Recreation (2015) and Open Spaces Strategy 2016 - 2021

5.23 Harborough District Council Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (January 17)

e) Reason for Committee Decision

5.24 This application is to be determined by Planning Committee because of the size and nature of the proposed development (“Major” development).

226

6. Assessment

a) Landscape Character / Capacity & the Principle of Development (including Locational Sustainability)

6.1 It has been established by planning approval 16/00592/OUT that development of the site for up to 150 dwellings is acceptable. Matters of principle have already been determined. Detailed assessment of the Reserved Matters remains to be considered.

b) Housing Requirement and Housing Land Supply

6.2 As was noted at the time of assessment of 16/00592/OUT, the District’s shortfall in the supply of deliverable housing land adds substantial material weight in favour of the proposal to develop the site for housing without delay.

c) Housing Mix (Market and Affordable)

6.3 The Development Plan Policy text of CS2 (b) states:

“A mix of housing types will be required on sites of 10 or more dwellings, taking into account the type of provision that is likely to be required, informed by the most up to date Strategic Housing Market Assessment or other local evidence.”

6.4 Paragraph 50 of the NPPF addresses this subject, inter alia stating:

“To deliver a wider choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, local planning authorities should:

 plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but not limited to, families with children, older people, people with disabilities, service families and people wishing to build their own homes);  identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations, reflecting local demand; and  where they have identified that affordable housing is needed, set policies for meeting this need on site…”

6.5 The most up to date local evidence is The Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA, January 2017), which identifies a significant need for 1 and 2 bed market dwellings. For example, Table 90 qualifies:

227

6.6 The HEDNA also outlines Affordable Housing needs for the Harborough District in Table 91:

6.7 It is acknowledged that the HEDNA study is primarily intended to inform Local Plans work. The study is an important part of the evidence base for Local Plans and the Strategic Growth Plan being prepared jointly by the City, County, Borough and District Councils and the Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership (LLEP). It represents the most up to date evidence base on the subject. The District Council has accepted the recommendations of the HEDNA in respect of housing mix by way of new Local Plan Draft Policy H5 (Housing Density, Mix and Standard). Material weight is attached to the HEDNA, as it pertains to the current Core Strategy Policy CS2 and the NPPF.

6.8 The housing mix for Affordable Dwelling types is mainly driven by Registered Social Landlord requirements and HDC Housing Enabling and Community Infrastructure Officer feedback. It is locality dependent. It is judged that satisfactory consideration has been given to Affordable Housing mix requirements.

6.9 However, the pre-application plans did not include any market housing provision below 3 bedroom units. The Housing Mix was previously proposed to be:

228

6.10 As part of the application submission, the market housing mix has been amended to reduce the number of larger dwellings and to deliver a quota of 1 bedroom dwellings (x2) and 2 bedroom dwellings (x18), which are a much needed dwelling type within the locality and wider District. The proposed Housing Mix is now as follows:

229

230

6.11 The pre-application proposal was for 34x 3 bed dwellings and 76x 4 and 5 bed dwellings.

6.12 The application proposal is for 54x 1, 2 and 3 bed dwellings and 56x 4 and 5 bed dwellings.

6.13 Table 90 of the HEDNA indicates that the proposal should approximately consist of 75% 1, 2 and 3 bed market dwellings and 25% 4 and 5 bed dwellings. The proposal is for 49% 1, 2 and 3 bed market dwellings and 51% 4 and 5 bed dwellings.

6.14 Although the proposal does not accord with Table 90 of the HEDNA, the proposal would deliver a significantly more balanced housing mix than was indicated at pre- application stage. Mindful of the most up to date evidence base, Core Strategy Policy CS2 and the NPPF Paragraph 50, the specific location and context of the site, the Authority’s 5 Year Housing land supply shortfall and the need to deliver housing without delay, it is considered that the overall mix of market and affordable of dwelling sizes is satisfactory.

d) The Reserved Matters: Layout; Scale; Appearance; and Landscaping

Layout

6.15 The Illustrative Masterplan submitted at the outline planning stage was an indication of what could potentially be achieved on the site. The Illustrative Masterplan was not conditioned as part of the outline approval.

6.16 The Applicant has stated (email to Case Officer dated 13/03/2018 @16:28):

“The proposed reserved matters layout is landscape led, and based upon the retention of all existing boundary hedgerows. The reserved matters layout retains an additional hedgerow which runs from the western boundary to the central hedgerow which was originally proposed for removal at the outline stage. Following members requests for retention at planning committee, this has now been retained. Furthermore, additional open space has been provided alongside the central hedgerow running south to north throughout the site delivering a new public footpath and green corridor to connect to the existing PRoW running west to east. The public open space has been moved to a more appropriate central location and increased in size, and the eastern boundary has also been improved with the introduction of a planting buffer.

Although it may be ideal to front onto the western and northern boundary, it is considered that the internal hedgerows and green corridors have a more interactive and visually attractive role in the development. Development has therefore been designed to front onto the central hedgerows, POS areas and green corridors. The northern and western boundary hedgerows are well established and dense, and do not provide for much outlook, therefore the decision was taken to side and back onto this boundary. Furthermore, fronting onto all hedgerows would result in excessive areas of private drives having to connect these properties back into the internal spine roads.”

6.17 The Applicant’s planning “Justification Statement” document explains with regard to layout:

231

“5.6. The development is structured around a continuous loop road through the Site with smaller lanes and private drives leading off it, reflecting the typical form of development found in Fleckney. The layout is configured to provide active frontage development overlooking principle roads, footpaths and public open space areas.

5.7. The layout provides adequate off street on-plot car parking, including a number of visitor spaces, along with adequate turning areas for fire appliances in compliance with fire regulations.

5.8. Following comments from members and the Planning Officer, existing trees and hedgerows have been retained where possible to create green corridors, link open spaces, and to preserve the rural edge to the settlement.

5.9. The layout has been designed to minimise the impact on the amenity on residents of Coleman Road. Sensitive boundary treatment including a landscaping buffer is proposed to screen the development and reduce visual impact. Dwellings along this boundary have been limited to 2 storeys, and amenity distances between dwellings have been applied in accordance with paragraph 2.6 of Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 2 (2003).

5.10. Affordable housing has been pepper-potted across the Site to create an inclusive development. The number of units within a cluster ranges from 7 to 14 to ensure that the units evenly dispersed throughout the development, whilst allowing Registered Providers to manage the units efficiently.

5.11. Multifunctional public open spaces are provided as follows:  The main area of public open space is located in the centre of the Site, including a children’s play area accessed via the Public Right of Way; accessible to both new and existing residents;  Amenity greenspace around the SUDS basin and along the Site frontage, setting the built form back from Kilby Road;  Green corridors incorporating pedestrian linkages;  Balancing pond will attenuate surface water flows and provide an attractive landscape feature;  Natural surveillance from dwellings fronting open space areas and public footpaths.”

6.18 The green spines of the development would form an attractive feature, with central hedgerows retained as much as possible. Walking routes around the development are good – to reach the route to the school, to walk to Kilby Road, to access the centrally located play area and to connect to the public footpath and countryside; all have been considered.

6.19 Boundary trees and foliage to all 4 perimeter boundaries of the site have been preserved or enhanced. Dwellings have been set away from Kilby Road behind the boundary hedgerow, private drives and public open space. The transitional character of Kilby Road in this location, moving from village to countryside, would be preserved. The western and northern boundary hedges with the adjacent countryside are retained, with a 1 metre set-off for private boundary fences in order to offer additional protection against incremental removal by residents.

6.20 The eastern boundary of the site is sensitive in layout terms owing to the need to adequately preserve the amenities of existing dwellings. A “new tree planting buffer” is shown for the portions of the eastern boundary which lack significant current

232

foliage screening. The layout plan shows that the rear gardens of new properties would be fenced off from the planted buffer (with gated access only) in order to encourage its establishment. The layout and planting / boundary treatments along the eastern boundary are considered to be acceptable.

6.21 All aspects of the Applicant’s justification and proposed layout are considered to be acceptable. A satisfactory standard of place making is proposed by the layout.

Scale

6.22 The proposal consists of single storey, two storey and a number of two and a half storey dwellings.

6.23 The 2 tallest dwelling types are as follows:

T310 – Plots 51-54, 57-60, 118-121 (12 plots) Ground to eaves – 5.5m Ground to ridge – 9.4m

H588 – Plots 15, 43, 78, 80, 115, 139 (6 plots) Ground to eaves – 5.0m Ground to ridge – 9.0m

6.24 The scale of the T310 and H588 dwellings is higher than what is average for the locality. However, given the well contained nature of the site and the cohesive design of the development, this degree of variation in ridge heights (from bungalows to tall dwellings) is considered to be acceptable.

6.25 A mixture of detached, semi-detached and terraced properties are proposed. This further adds to the variation in the size/mass of built form. The footprint sizes, eaves and ridge heights (and the concomitant massing of properties) are all judged to be in keeping with the locality. The proportions used in dwellings are judged to be harmonious (for example, fenestration dimensions and roof mass relative to the size of elevations). The massing of larger and more conspicuous dwellings is generally broken up through the use of rear gables, which are set-down to create a subordinate appearance.

Appearance

6.26 Appearance relates to matters such as materials, architectural details and the streetscene character of properties.

6.27 A detailed Materials Schedule has been submitted which stipulates a suitable mix of 3 different red brick types, ivory coloured render (half rendered at first floor only, with brick string detail) and 3 different tiles (grey and red).

6.28 The revised materials layout qualifies the proposed materials, including:

• Ibstock Leicester Weathered Red • Hanson Woodside Mixture • Ibstock Hardwick Welbeck Red Mixture

• Russell Lothian Slate Grey • Russell Lothian Cottage Red • Russell Grampian Cottage Red

233

6.29 A good standard is also proposed in other materials and architectural detailing, including the use of exposed rafter feet to some dwellings, corbel and dentil brickwork, plinths, feature sills and lintels, bay windows, porches and chimneys. Architectural detailing is included on the Affordable Housing units.

6.30 Corner dwellings turn corners well, using fenestration to both elevations and generally possessing rear gables adjacent to the street frontage.

6.31 It is judged that, overall, an attractive range of dwellings is proposed. The character and appearance of the proposed dwellings would help to give the development a good standard of visual amenity.

Landscaping

6.32 Landscaping in the development is judged to be of a good standard.

6.33 A suitable combination of surfacing treatments is proposed, including block paving for private drives (irrespective of whether the drives serve market or affordable dwellings). Certain sections of public roads use block paving, primarily for traffic calming and safety reasons, but it would also enhance the character and appearance of the development.

6.34 Boundary treatments are satisfactory in their materials and layout, with front- boundary garden fences set-back behind dwellings so that they are not prominent hard edges in the streetscene. Brick garden walls strategically use curved corners, rather than sharp edges, in order to create a softer visual impact in the streetscene.

6.35 Attractive open spaces are proposed in the development. The balancing lagoon and public open space to its west would create an attractive entrance feature to the development. Structural and informal tree, hedge and other foliage planting in both public and private spaces would achieve an attractive residential environment. Plan amendments have enhanced the permeability (ease) of walking around the development.

6.36 The existing north, west and south perimeter boundaries of the development are strong. They are intended to be segregated from private plots/gardens by the erection of close boarded and post and rail fences.

6.37 Existing internal hedgelines are retained. They are used to form attractive features in the development, complimenting public footpath routes. They also benefit amenity relationships, serving to enhance privacy between dwellings. The internal hedgelines would break up the development into smaller portions and lend the development a much greener and more attractive aesthetic compared to if they were removed.

6.38 Condition 18 of the Outline consent protects foliage on the site which is to be retained in the development, by requiring enclosure “by protective fencing, in accordance with British Standard 5837 (2010): Trees in Relation to Construction. Before the fence is erected its type and position shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority, and after it has been erected it shall be maintained for the duration of the works and no vehicle, plant, temporary building or materials, including raising and or, lowering of ground levels, shall be allowed within the protected areas(s).”

6.39 A Landscape Management Plan has been submitted as per the requirements of Condition 9 of 16/00592/OUT. The Landscape Management Plan has been

234

reviewed by the HDC Green Spaces Officer, who has advised that it is satisfactory. An Informative Note is recommended to qualify that the submitted Landscape Management Plan (Revision A; Ref: GL0553; Dated 27th March 2018) satisfies Condition 9 of 16/00592/OUT (subject to it being maintained in perpetuity, as stipulated by Paragraph 1.2 of the LMP).

6.40 A satisfactory equipped play area is proposed in the development. It is centrally located and easily accessible to all residents, including users of the Public Right of Way. People would be able to access the play area from existing residential development off Coleman Road. It would be a pleasant play area to use. A run of 8 dwellings (plots 49-56) and plot 63 face directly on to the play area, which creates surveillance and enhances public safety.

Conclusion

6.41 With regard to all of the above Reserved Matters considerations, the proposal is judged to comply with the pertinent policies of the development plan (CS1, CS2, CS8, CS11 and CS17), as well as the Framework.

e) Ecology

6.42 An objection has been submitted by LCC Ecology, which primarily relates to the proposed layout not providing a minimum 5 metre set-off buffer from the western and northern hedgerows. The concern relates to this increasing the likelihood of incremental removal and/or poor management of these hedgelines and the concomitant harm that it would cause to the cohesive ecological value of these wildlife corridors.

6.43 31.10.16 LCC Ecology comments for 16/00592/OUT:

“The bat survey recorded bats on site and concluded that the site as a whole was being used by a low number of bats. A number of trees were assessed as having bat roost potential and at the moment it appears that these trees will be retained. However, the use of the site by foraging bats highlights the need to retain buffers between the hedgerows and the development, as discussed in our previous response dated 19/07/2016.

Our recommendations for this application therefore remain the same as those sent previously, summarised below:

- Layout to be in accordance with the Sketch Layout (David Wilson Homes, S7170/500/01). Any amendments must retain hedgerows and surrounding buffers and T26. - Landscaping should be designed to increase the biodiversity value of the site, particularly in the area surrounding the balancing pond. - A management plan should be submitted to ensure that all created and retained ecological features are maintained appropriately. - Works to be in accordance with the recommendations in section 6 of the ecology survey (RammSanderson, July 2016). - Protected species surveys are only considered to be valid for a period of 2 years. Updated surveys should therefore be completed and submitted in support of either the Reserved Matters application, or prior to the commencement of the development (whichever is soonest after September 2018.”

235

6.44 The 16/00592/OUT Officer Committee Report states:

““Ecology 6.23 As with all large application a full Ecological Report including a Phase I Habitat Survey was submitted with the application. The comments of the County Ecologist are set out earlier in this report but it is noted that they have no objection to the application subject to the use of suitable conditions being attached to any planning permission.”

6.45 However, the Conditions Appendix of the 16/00592/OUT Officer Committee Report does not contain 4 of the 5 bulleted “suitable conditions” (recommended by LCC Ecology 31.10.16). Therefore, the Outline Planning Permission Decision Notice does not contain these Conditions. The only Ecology related Condition on the Outline Planning Permission is Condition 17, which states:

“17 Ecology The development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with the approved mitigation measures detailed in the Ecological Survey. REASON: In the interests of wildlife and nature conservation and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.”

6.46 In response to the LCC Ecology concerns, the Applicant has provided a detailed response (email date 13 March 2018 @16:28), advising:

“The Illustrative Masterplan submitted at the outline planning stage was only an indication of what could potentially be achieved on the site. The Illustrative Masterplan was not conditioned as part of the outline approval, and therefore this should not be a material consideration in the determination of this application.

The proposed reserved matters layout is landscape led, and based upon the retention of all existing boundary hedgerows. The reserved matters layout retains an additional hedgerow which runs from the western boundary to the central hedgerow which was originally proposed for removal at the outline stage. Following members requests for retention at planning committee, this has now been retained. Furthermore, additional open space has been provided alongside the central hedgerow running south to north throughout the site delivering a new public footpath and green corridor to connect to the existing PRoW running west to east. The public open space has been moved to a more appropriate central location and increased in size, and the eastern boundary has also been improved with the introduction of a planting buffer.

The majority of the plots along the northern and western boundary side onto the boundary, with only 7 plots backing on. It is considered that there is less pressure to

236

prune where a plot sides onto a boundary hedgerow and every effort has been made to keep properties that back onto the boundary to a minimum.

Notwithstanding this, efforts to secure the retention of these trees and hedgerows have been made. The plot conveyance for properties along the western and northern boundary will only go as far as the side/rear boundary fence line and will not include the boundary hedgerow or boundary trees. The existing hedgerow is proposed to be trimmed back 1m to allow a service corridor along the site perimeter behind the 1.8m high boundary fencing on the northern and western boundary, along with four 2m wide access gates located off private drives as shown on the revised layout (Revision J). The northern and western boundary hedgerow, trees and service corridor will be conveyed to a management company and maintained in perpetuity as shown on the attached Open Space Transfer Plan. This will ensure that the boundary trees and hedgerows are not compromised, and that wildlife corridors are retained and undisturbed. A 1 metre service corridor will provide a buffer to ensure that there is no pressure for future occupiers to prune overhanging branches, and that the hedgerow and trees are managed appropriately.

The mature tree (T26 - Ash) on the northern boundary is categorised as a category B2/C1 in the Arboricultural Report submitted to support the outline application. The rear garden of plot 80 is 15m at its deepest, and 11m at its narrowest, therefore this plot has a substantial rear garden which along with the 1m off set from the hedgerow will further reduce pressure to prune. Only a small section of the tree canopy lies within the rear garden of plot 80, and we do not consider this to be so significant as to refuse the application.

We consider that on balance we have made best use of the proposed layout with respect to hedgerow and tree retention, with the majority of properties fronting/siding onto hedgerows and with suitable measures in place to ensure hedgerow retention and management particularly along the western and northern boundary”

6.47 The Applicant’s explanation is considered to be reasonable. When combined with the Outline planning application background to this matter, it would not be reasonable to resist the proposed layout (Revision L) on ecological grounds.

6.48 The layout proposes a set-away buffer with the north and west boundary hedges, albeit at a reduced 1 metre gap (not the minimum 5m gap advocated by LCC Ecology). The responsibility for maintaining these hedges is conveyed to the Landscape Management Plan contractor, as per Para.1.22 of the LMP (p.4):

“A maintenance corridor has been provided throughout the site perimeter. This will ensure suitable access to maintain existing trees and hedgerows. It shall be utilised by the Contractor to ensure pedestrian operatives and, as necessary, light compact tracked machinery (i.e. chippers) effectively implement the approved maintenance specifications. Where gated, locks shall be provided and keys retained by the Management Company & Contractor.”

This would reduce the likelihood of unsuitable removal or other works taking place to the hedgerows; a pressure which may have existed had they formed private garden boundaries.

6.49 Additional planting is incorporated along the eastern perimeter of the site, to improve habitat connectivity within this area (as advocated by the “General Ecological Enhancement” recommendations of the Protected Species Survey Report submitted for 16/00592/OUT (pp.25-26).

237

6.50 The balancing lagoon has associated benefits as an ecological feature within the site, consisting of a combination of “Wetland grass mixture” and “Pond edge mixture” (mixtures for wetlands). A meadowland grass mixture is proposed in the public open space to the western side of the main access, which would also have ecological benefits.

6.51 Ecological interests have been given satisfactory consideration in the proposed development. The application is judged to comply with local and national policies and guidance in this respect.

f) Flooding and Drainage

6.52 Drainage of the site is judged to be appropriately controlled by Conditions attached to the Outline Planning Permission, which remain to be Discharged by the Applicant.

g) Highways

6.53 It is the Applicant’s intention that roads within the development are adopted, except for private drives.

6.54 A small number of minor amendments have been made to the internal roads and site layout as a result of the LCC HA 12.04.18 consultation response (see full rationale at Para.4.7 above). The amendments relate to achieving a highway design which is in general accordance with adoptable highway standards.

6.55 As noted at Outline stage, the residual cumulative impacts of the development of 150 dwellings on this site are not considered to be severe by LCC HA. This involved consideration by the LCC HA and HDC decision takers as to the wider highway impacts of the proposed 150 dwellings, including, for example, impacts on Coleman Road and traffic routes through Kilby. Condition 11 of 16/00592/OUT (Construction Method Statement) includes criterion “l” for “details of the routing of construction traffic.” This Condition is yet to be Discharged.

6.56 The amended layout and highway details are supported in highway terms; it is considered that there would be no significant detriment to public highway safety and operation. The proposal is judged to accord with Policies CS1, CS5 and CS11 in respect of highway considerations.

h) Residential and General Amenities

6.57 The proposed layout plan is judged to demonstrate satisfactory residential amenity relationships; both in relation to dwellings within the proposed development and in terms of relationships with existing dwellings in the locality (Coleman Road, Shoulbard and Kilby Road dwellings which lie within close proximity to the site).

6.58 Shoulbard and Kilby Road dwellings are offered high levels of amenity protection by the balancing lagoon and an area of public open space being located in this southeastern part of the site.

238

6.59 Distance separations with facing Coleman Road dwellings average 30+ metres, which is significantly in excess of HDC’s minimum distance separation guidance (which states 21m).

6.60 Internal amenity relationships are nearly all in compliance with SPG:2 & SPG:5, save for a small number of gables which fall below the minimum 14m separation distance. (For example, dwellings on Plots 57-59 face towards the side gable of Plot 65 at approximately 12m separation. However, it is noted that the side gable of Plot 65 lies due north of Plots 57-59, which mitigates light impacts and just leaves a sense of enclosure. Plots 57-59 are close to the countryside boundary of the site and their enclosure and overlooking is otherwise relatively low. Plot 14 also lies only 12m south of Plot 7’s gable, but Plot 14 has very low overlooking from neighbours and is judged to offer a satisfactory standard of amenity. The SPGs suggest that these are situations which can justify a flexible approach to the application of standards.)

6.61 Dwellings within the development are reasonably tightly spaced, with distance separations in many instances only just meeting HDC SPG minimum guidelines. However, with regard to whether it is appropriate to use conditions to restrict the future use of permitted development rights, the national Planning Practice Guidance states:

“Conditions restricting the future use of permitted development rights or changes of use will rarely pass the test of necessity and should only be used in exceptional circumstances.”

“Area wide or blanket removal of freedoms to carry out small scale domestic and non-domestic alterations that would otherwise not require an application for planning permission are unlikely to meet the tests of reasonableness and necessity.”

(Paragraph: 017 Reference ID: 21a-017-20140306)

6.62 The reasonable size of the proposed dwellings relative to their small-to-medium sized gardens reduces the pressure for future Permitted Development extensions of significant size. Mindful of Government advice on this matter, General Permitted Development Order restrictions are not recommended.

6.63 The proposal would not lead to harmful amenity impacts in other respects. Noise, smell, pollution and other construction impacts are satisfactorily controlled by way of the Construction Method Statement Condition attached to the Outline planning permission.

6.64 The proposal is judged to be acceptable in terms of residential amenity considerations. The application complies with Policy CS11 in this respect.

i) Planning Obligations

6.65 Planning Obligations are laid out in the signed S106 Agreement attached to 16/00592/OUT. No variations are proposed.

239

7. The Planning Balance / Conclusion

NPPF Test of Sustainable Development

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

Economic dimension:

7.2 The additional housing will provide employment and business generation during the construction period and the ensuing occupiers will contribute to the local and wider economy.

Social dimension:

7.3 The development will deliver a satisfactory mix of much needed housing in a Rural Centre settlement, thereby helping to meet proven local housing needs (both market housing and affordable housing needs). The development will contribute to evidence-based social and environmental infrastructure needs in the locality.

7.4 The development would provide a satisfactory level of residential amenity for future occupiers, as well as safeguarding the amenity of neighbouring residents outside the site.

Environmental dimension:

7.5 Good design is a key aspect of the environmental dimensions of sustainable development. The site lies adjacent to a main entrance to the village from Kilby. The proposed development is set back from Kilby Road in a harmonious manner. This would soften the appearance of the development and respect the open countryside setting which lies to the south of part of the site. The development would be in keeping with the layout, scale, landscaping, character and appearance of the site and its surroundings.

7.6 The development would not adversely affect local highway safety, ecological, archaeological and arboricultural interests.

7.7 The proposal is judged to represent sustainable development in accordance with the Framework.

7.8 It is considered that the proposed development satisfactorily complies with the relevant policies in the Development Plan and the NPPF. There are no material planning considerations which indicate that the policies of the development plan should not prevail.

7.9 Therefore, it is recommended that the application is approved subject to the Planning Condition and Informative Notes listed in Appendix A.

240

Appendix A – Recommended Planning Condition and Informative Notes

Recommended Condition

1. Approved Plans – to edit once highway amendments received

The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans:

Layouts Planning Layout H7170/100/01 Rev L External Materials Layout H7170/500/01 Rev E Boundary Treatments Layout H7170/500/02 Rev D Surface Treatments Layout H7170/500/03 Rev D Eaves & Chimney Allocation Layout H7170/500/04 Rev D

Engineering General Arrangement Layout H7170-100-01 Rev H

241

P204-EC7 (AS) Floor Plans P204.E.01 P204-EC7 (AS) Elevations P204.E.02 P204-EC7 (OPP) Floor Plans P204.E.03 P204-EC7 (OPP) Elevations P204.E.04 P341--D7 (AS) Floor Plans P341.D.01 P341--D7 (AS) Elevations P341.D.02 P341--D7 (OPP) Floor Plans P341.D.03 P341--D7 (OPP) Elevations P341.D.04 P341--D7 (AS) Floor Plans P341.D.05 P341--D7 (AS) Elevations P341.D.06 P341-E-7 (AS) Floor Plans P341.E.05 P341-E-7 (AS) Elevations P341.E.06 P341-E-7 (AS) Floor Plans P341.E.01 P341-E-7 (AS) Elevations P341.E.02 P341-E-7 (AS) Floor Plans P341.E.03 P341-E-7 (AS) Elevations P341.E.04 P382-E-7 (AS) Floor Plans P382 E.01 P382-E-7 (AS) Elevations P382 E.02 P382-E-7 (OPP) Floor Plans P382 E.03 P382-E-7 (OPP) Elevations P382 E.04 SF11 GAN_FAN4 (AS) Floor Plans SF11.E.01 SF11 GAN_FAN4 (AS) Elevations SF11.E.02 SF11 GAN_FAN4 (OPP) Floor Plans SF11.E.03 SF11 GAN_FAN4 (OPP) Elevations SF11.E.04 SH50—7 (AS) Floor Plans SH50E.01 (BCE) SH50—7 (AS) Elevations SH50E.02 (BCE) SH50—7 (OPP) Floor Plans SH50E.03 (BCE) SH50—7 (OPP) Elevations SH50E.04 (BCE) SH50-I-7 (AS) Floor Plans SH50.I.05 SH50-I-7 (AS) Elevations SH50-I-06 SH52-E-7 (AS) Floor Plans SH52E.01 (BCE) SH52-E-7 (AS) Elevations SH52E.02 (BCE) SH52-E-7 (OPP) Floor Plans SH52E.03 (BCE) SH52-E-7 (OPP) Elevations SH52E.04 (BCE) SH52-I-7 (AS) Floor Plans SH52.I.05 SH52-I-7 (AS) Elevations SH52.I.06 SH52-I-7 (OPP) Floor Plans SH52.I.07 SH52-I-7 (OPP) Elevations SH52.I.08 SH54-E-7 (AS) Floor Plans SH54.E.05 SH54-E-7 (AS) Elevations SH54.E.06 SH54-E-7 (OPP) Floor Plans SH54.E.07 SH54-E-7 (OPP) Elevations SH54.E.08 SH55-E-7 (OPP) Floor Plans SH55.E.07 SH55-E-7 (OPP) Elevations SH55.E.08 T310-E-7 (AS) Floor Plans T310.E.01 T310-E-7 (AS) Elevations T310.E.02 T310-E-7 (OPP) Floor Plans T310.E.03 T310-E-7 (OPP) Elevations T310.E.04

242

H421---7 (AS) Elevations H421.08(OTR) H433---7 (AS) Floor Plans H433.09 H433---7 (AS) Elevations H433.10 H436--X7 (OPP) Floor Plans H436.11 H436--X7 (OPP) Elevations H436.12 H436--X7 (AS) Floor Plans H436.05 H436--X7 (AS) Elevations H436.06 H436--X7 (OPP) Floor Plans H436.07 H436--X7 (OPP) Elevations H436.08 H588--7 (OPP) Floor Plans H588.15 H588--7 (OPP) Elevations H588.16 H588--7 (AS) Floor Plans H588.09 H588--7 (AS) Elevations H588.10 H588--7 (OPP) Floor Plans H588.11 H588--7 (OPP) Elevations H588.12 P341--D7 (OPP) Floor Plans P341.D.15 P341--D7 (OPP) Elevations P341.D.16 P341--D7 (AS) Floor Plans P341.D.09 P341--D7 (AS) Elevations P341.D.10 P341--D7 (OPP) Floor Plans P341.D.11 P341--D7 (OPP) Elevations P341.D.12 P341--WD7 (AS) Floor Plans P341.WD.05 P341--WD7 (AS) Elevations P341.WD.06 P341--WD7 (OPP) Floor Plans P341.WD.07 P341--WD7 (OPP) Elevations P341.WD.08

Garage Types: LDG2H7 Floor Plans & Elevations LDG2H7.01 LSG1H7 Floor Plans & Elevations LSG1H7.01 LTG2H7 Floor Plans & Elevations LTG2H7.01 SDG1H7 Floor Plans & Elevations SDG1H7.01

Miscellaneous: Landscape Management Plan (Revision A)

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt.

243

Recommended Informative Notes

1. Highways – Works Within the Highway Any works within the limits of the highway with regard to the access shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Leicestershire County Council Highways Manager - (telephone 0116 3050001).

2. Highways – Access Alterations in the Highway This planning permission does NOT allow you to carry out access alterations in the highway. Before such work can begin, separate permits or agreements will be required under the Highways Act 1980 from the Infrastructure Planning team. For further information, including contact details, you are advised to visit the County Council website as follows: see Part 6 of the '6Cs Design Guide' at www.leics.gov.uk/6csdg

3. Highways – Road Adoption If the roads within the proposed development are to be adopted by the Highway Authority, the Developer will be required to enter into an Agreement under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 for the adoption of the roads. Detailed plans will need to be submitted and approved, the agreement signed and all sureties and fees paid prior to the commencement of development. If an Agreement is not in place when the development is to be commenced, the Highway Authority will serve APCs in respect of all plots served by all the roads within the development in accordance with Section 219 of the Highways Act 1980. Payment of the charge MUST be made before building commences. Please note that the Highway Authority has standards for private roads which will need to be complied with to ensure that the APC may be exempted and the monies returned. Failure to comply with these standards will mean that monies cannot be refunded. For further details see www.leics.gov.uk/6csdg or email [email protected]

4. Landscape Management Plan The submitted Landscape Management Plan (Revision A; Ref: GL0553; Dated 27th March 2018) satisfies Condition 9 of 16/00592/OUT (subject to it being maintained in perpetuity, as per Paragraph 1.2 of the LMP).

244

Planning Committee Report

Applicant: David Wilson Homes

Application Ref: 18/00268/REM

Location: Land North of Fleckney Road, Kibworth Beauchamp

Proposal: Erection of 195 dwellings and associated appearance, landscaping, scale and infrastructure works (reserved matters of 16/00166/OUT)

Application Validated: 09.02.2018

Target Date: 11.05.2018

Case Officer: Mike Smith

Recommendation

Planning Permission is APPROVED for the reasons set out in the report and subject to the appended conditions :

The proposed development would, by virtue of its scale, design, form and massing, not adversely affect the living conditions of neighbouring residents, would not adversely affect local highway safety or give rise to a road safety hazard. It would respond appropriately to the site's characteristics. In addition, the proposal would not adversely affect ecological or archaeological interests or lead to an unacceptable flood risk. The proposal therefore complies with Policies CS2, CS3, CS5, CS8, CS9, CS10, CS11 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy and Policies H3 and H4, of the Kibworths Neighbourhood Plan

1. Site & Surroundings

1.1 The application site (hereafter referred to as the ‘Site’) is located in the south east of Kibworth, to the north of Fleckney Road. It is made up of 3 grass field parcels (one unmanaged and two sheep grazed fields) covering an area of around 8.8 hectares.

245

1.2 The Site’s eastern boundary adjoins existing residential development on Gladstone Street. These dwellings back onto the Site with well established vegetation at the ends of the gardens. To the south, the Site fronts onto Fleckney Road, Kibworth Bowling Club, and Kibworth Cricket Club. The Site’s northern boundary is currently farmland, but has Outline planning permission and Reserved maters approval for 110 dwellings. To the north of this land is a cutting for the East Midlands railway line. North of the railway line is ‘Kibworth Meadows’ a new residential estate development. The western boundary is formed of a combination of heavily treed gardens, allotments, nurseries and a short segment of the Warwick Road.

246

Source: Design and Access Statement, (DWH)

1.3 The site is generally flat, although the landform falls from approximately 125m AOD at the southern boundary of Field 1 and Western boundary of the Field 3 to a low point of just below 120m AOD at the north-east corner of Field 2.

247

Field Parcels

1.4 The majority of the sites boundaries are defined by native field boundary hedgerows with intermittent tree cover that comprises mature Oak and Ash trees. The field boundaries are generally quite tall and dense. The eastern boundary of the site is the only exception to this being defined by the gardens of the adjoining settlement.

1.5 There is no public access to the site.

1.6 The site is identified as being located outside the Limits of Development as defined by the Core Strategy and the Kibworths neighbourhood Plan.

2. Site History

2.1 16/00166/OUT Erection of up to 195 dwellings (all matters reserved except access) – Approved with S106 Agreement

3. The Application Submission a) Summary of Proposals

3.1 This is a Reserved Maters proposal for the erection of 195 dwellings following the grant of Outline Planning permission in January 2018.

3.2 The proposals include a range of house types from 1 bed apartments and 2 bed single storey bungalows and includes 2,3 4 and bedroom dwellings with on site parking and garaging. In addition a detailed landscape scheme has been included.

3.3 The application is accompanied by detailed plans of the proposed layout, detailed house type plans and detailed landscape, engineering and surface treatment details as well as a limited number of street scenes.

248

Proposed Layout

c) Pre-application Engagement

3.8 Prior to submitting the application, the applicant undertook initial consultation with officers on the details of the proposals.

4. Consultations and Representations

4.1 Consultations with technical consultees and the local community were carried out on the application

4.2 A summary of the technical consultee responses which have been received are set out below. Comments which relate to developer contributions are set in detail at Appendix A. If you wish to view comments in full, please go to www.harborough.gov.uk/planning a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees

4.3 Natural England Statutory nature conservation sites – no objection

Natural England has assessed this application using the Impact Risk Zones data (IRZs) and is satisfied that the proposed development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the Kilby – Foxton Canal SSSI has been notified. We therefore advise your authority that this SSSI does not represent a

249

constraint in determining this application. Should the details of this application change, Natural England draws your attention to Section 28(I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), requiring your authority to re-consult Natural England.

Protected species We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species.

4.4 Leicestershire County Council Lead Local Flood Authority The applicant has submitted the aforementioned reserved matters application covering appearance, landscaping, scale and infrastructure works pursuant to outline planning permission 16/00166/OUT, which was granted on the 31st January 2018. From review of the granted outline permission and the layout submitted as part of this reserved matters application the LLFA considers the proposals acceptable.

4.5 NHS England Reiterate the request for a financial contribution towards the Kibworth medical Centre (this has already been included in the signed S106 Agreement)

4.6 Leicestershire County Council Highway Authority Comments Awaited

4.7 Leicestershire County Council Archaeology. A required programme of archaeological work was secured on the current outline permission (16/00166/OUT) by conditions 10 and 11.

4.8 Leicestershire County Council Ecology In general, the submitted layout and landscape plans are in accordance with the outline Master Sketch layout and the planning condition 3 of the outline application.

I am satisfied with the approach to the southern grassland area (the Adder's Tongue meadow) and (whilst the buffer zone to the northern hedge is minimal) it is in accordance with the outline master sketch layout. My comments relate to the north-eastern grassland, immediately south of the SUDS and east of the re-aligned watercourse, which is shown as public open space. I am not satisfied with the plans for this area, and therefore have a holding objection until this is addressed.

4.9 Leicestershire County Council Forestry I looked at the landscaping plans as requested. I’m happy with the species choices in general. At the western boundary of the bowling green, I rather think the bowls club has a fair point in regard to tree-planting between their facility and plots 190-195. A bowling club isn’t something I would expect needed screening from houses, or vice versa. The planting of trees along here would increasingly only increase the maintenance problems of the greenkeeper, in terms of leaf-clearance and so on as the trees mature. Shrub planting is proposed along the boundary as a separator between the new homes and the bowls club, which should be sufficient.

4.10 Harborough District Council Neighbourhood and Green Spaces Officer The species used, specifications for planting and locations are all satisfactory. I would like to see this development POS and the adjacent developments POS align with each other to form a contiguous open space even though there are two developments.

250

The play area is centrally located and has the required play value for a LEAP. The grass mat safety surfacing should be laid on turf and the ground should be level and evenly firmed to prevent uneven settlement after installation The Landscape Management Plan is for a five year period. A mechanism for review of the LMP and approval by the LPA is included.

4.11 HDC Parish Liaison and Engagement Officer As this is a REM application, so no new Community Facilities Request will be made. The request made in the original application (16/00166/OUT) still stands.

4.12 HDC Housing Enabling and Community Infrastructure Officer We have held a number of discussions with DWH at pre-app and Outline stage to agree the AH requirements and mix of units. I therefore confirm matters as agreed and I have no further comment to add at REM stage. 4.13 Kibworth Beauchamp Parish Council (in full) In considering this application Kibworth Beauchamp Parish Council asks that planning officers and members consider whether the REM proposals meet the conditions and standards set out in the Kibworth Villages Neighbourhood Plan which was made following referendum on Thursday 25th January 2018. Specifically, the following Policies require your attention: POLICY H5: RESIDENTIAL CAR PARKING 'New residential development should incorporate sufficient parking provision to meet the needs of future residents in accordance with the Leicestershire parking standards except that 4+ bedroomed dwellings shall have a minimum of 4 off-street parking spaces within the curtilage of each dwelling.' We believe that this development falls short of that requirement by at least forty spaces.

POLICY H4: BUILDING DESIGN PRINCIPLES 'On developments of ten or more dwellings, housing development should be predominantly two storey with any three-storey dwellings being spread throughout the development.' We believe that the proposed number and location of three-storey buildings will be too dominant on the street scenes.

POLICY H3: HOUSING MIX 'To meet the future needs of the residents of the Plan area, new housing development proposals should provide a mixture of housing types specifically to meet identified local needs in the Kibworth villages. Priority should be given to dwellings of three bedrooms or fewer and to homes for older people. Innovative and inventive designs with varied house types, building widths, styles, details, facing and roofing materials reflecting a varied street scene will be supported.'

LINK ROAD We are concerned that the potential link road between this and the adjoining Miller Homes development has not been pursued. We believe that the link would help balance the traffic flow to and from the A6 and reduce vehicle movements at the difficult Warwick Road/Fleckney Road junction where several serious accidents have occurred. We ask planning officers to renew discussions with developers on this matter. The following policy is relevant: POLICY T1: TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT FOR NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT 'Provision is made for accessible and efficient public transport routes within the development site or the improvement of public transport facilities to serve the development. It incorporates adequate parking and manoeuvring space within the development in accordance with the Highway Authoritys standards and Neighbourhood Plan Policy H5 (above)'

251

MULTI-USE COMMUNITY FACILITY We welcome further discussions about a potential multi-use community facility within the development. The developer has proposed a site and has offered to provide the land. However, we are concerned that location, to the north-east of the development, would lead to an unacceptable amount of additional vehicle movements caused by people attending functions at the facility probably including youth activities on most nights of the week. We also contend that this facility, which was proposed in the initial planning application (when it was located near to the entrance to the estate off Fleckney Road) should be provided (ie: constructed) by the developer. The potential available community facilities funding would not provide enough finance for the project, neither has Kibworth Beauchamp Parish Council reserves to cover such an initiative. It is our view that gifting a redundant plot of land in a relatively inaccessible location, and which the community cannot afford to develop, cannot be seen as a positive contribution to the community. POLICY CSA3: MULTI-FUNCTIONAL COMMUNITY CENTRE is relevant: 'The Plan would support proposals for a multi-functional community centre which: 1) Is within the Limits to Development; 3) Has the capacity to accommodate scout/guide groups and their storage requirements; 4) Will not result in unacceptable traffic movements, noise, fumes, smell or other disturbance to residential properties; 5) Will include adequate parking provision; and 6) Is of a scale appropriate to the needs of the locality and is accessible for residents wishing to walk or cycle. We ask that planning officers pursue this matter vigorously with the developer to ensure that the development includes the provision of a facility which meets this criteria. With regard to (1) above, we would respectfully point out that this entire development is outside the Limits to Development prescribed in our Neighbourhood Plan.

b) Local Community

4.14 29 objections and 1 letter commenting on the proposal have been received and can be viewed in full on the website. These comments have been briefly summarised in Table 1 below.

 There will be a loss of privacy to the rear gardens of properties on Gladstone Street  A loss of daylight and sunlight.  Overbearing impact from another large development.  Yet more Traffic and parking problems. What gives you the right to allow more houses when traffic cannot safely exit the village from New Road onto the A6 as there is not a safe gap in the traffic to do so?  Noise and disturbance.  Yet more building in the open countryside.  Probability of more flooding.  More drainage problems.  Lack of school facilities.  Lack of doctors appointment  This development will only add to the pressure on the infrastructure of Kibworth and should have been refused at the Outline stage. The following should be essential requirements to prevent this from becoming yet another 'bolt-on' estate: (i) A multi-purpose Community Building (ii) A bus route

252

through the estate. (iii) An arrangement with interested groups for educational use of the protected grassland.  This village just can not take anymore houses. The proposal will cause major issues with access in and out of the village. The infrastructure is far from adequate and can not sustain all these housing proposals. Over the last few years the traffic using the A6 has increased to a level that affects everyone living close the the road. With the added proposals and developments going on across the wider area the A6 is grinding to a halt.  These plans do not conform to the Kibworth Neighbourhood Plan which has identified a lack of car parking spaces to be a key issue throughout the village. The Neighbourhood Plan supports measures to minimise the impact of new development on parking issues and Policy H8, by adding detail to the Leicestershire County Council parking standards, is intended to help ensure that new development does not make an already problematic situation worse.

The Kibworth Neighbourhood Plan prescribes that dwellings with 4 or more bedrooms shall have a *minimum* of 4 off-street parking spaces within the curtilage of each dwelling. This proposal includes 46 x 4 bedroom houses with only 3 spaces per dwelling, resulting in an overall shortfall of at least 46 car parking spaces. That's not to say that there aren't more missing elsewhere but these are the obvious ones.

The proposals are thereby contrary to POLICY H5: RESIDENTIAL CAR PARKING of the Kibworth Neighbourhood Plan.

Policies H6 and H7 of the Kibworth Neighbourhood Plan also need to be examined against these plans, it is impossible for an amateur observant to decipher the submitted plans sufficiently to determine if the required space allocations for refuse storage and external storage are being met. I would expect HDC to scrutinise the proposal for these important details.

POLICY ENV5: IMPORTANT HEDGES states that new development proposals should incorporate existing hedgerows. It is unclear from these plans if that is the case. The landscaping plans has references to 'trees and hedgerows to be removed' but it is unclear which tree and hedgerows, if any, are to be removed. More details are needed here to ensure these assets are protected.

The developer of this and the adjacent site have now backtracked from providing a link road between the two adjacent sites. This makes a future bus route through the development impossible. This is contrary to POLICY T1: TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT FOR NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT of the Kibworth Neighbourhood Plan which prescribes that new housing development should demonstrate that Provision is made for accessible and efficient public transport routes within the development site or the improvement of public transport facilities to serve the development. Neither of this has been demonstrated, quite the contrary is taking place as early proposals are already being eroded.

253

This is further underlined by POLICY T6: AIR QUALITY Planning decisions should take account of the impact on air quality in the Plan area, supporting proposals which will result in the improvement of Air Quality or minimise reliance upon less sustainable forms of transport.

No such account of the impact has been taken. No proper assessment has been made to forecast the impact this development will have on the AQMA. HDC is required to improve air quality inside the AQMA and it has not been demonstrated that these proposals will achieve that. Quite the opposite actually as more cars will mean more emissions, not less. The traffic survey the applicant provided states that over 80% of cars will turn right outside of the development, towards the A6. It would be interested to see an actual forecast on how 80+% of cars from this development will influence emissions in the AQMA. Add to that the 110 houses on the adjacent site and the cumulative impact will be measurable. Remember that keeping emissions even at current levels is not good enough, these proposals need to demonstrate how they will improve the situation.

These proposals are also contrary to POLICY SD1: LIMITS TO DEVELOPMENT of the Kibworth Neighbourhood Plan as they are outside of the limits to development.

Further points relating to the destruction of ridge and furrow heritage assets, the lack of local school places and the increasingly worsening traffic situation could be raised here but HDC is aware of all the details and has so far chosen to disregard those.

5. Planning Policy Considerations

5.2 Unless stated an explanation of the development plan polices; material considerations, evidence base and other documents referred to can be found at the beginning of the Agenda under ‘All Agenda Items Common Planning Policy’ a) Development Plan

o Harborough District Core Strategy

5.3 The following aspects of the CS are notably relevant to this application.

 Policy CS1  Policy CS2  Policy CS3  Policy CS5  Policy CS8  Policy CS9  Policy CS10  Policy CS11  Policy CS12

254

 Policy CS17

o The saved polices of the Harborough District 2001 Local Plan

5.4 Of the limited number policies that remain extant, Policy HS/8 (Limits to Development) is of relevance to this application. The Site is outside of but adjoins the Limits to Development of Kibworth.

o The Kibworths Neighbourhood Plan

5.5The following aspects of the CS are notably relevant to this application

 Policy SD1: Limits to Development  Policy CSA3: Multi Functional Community Facility  Policy H3: housing Mix  Policy H4 Building Design Principles  Policy H5: Residential Car Parking  Policy H6: Refuse Storage  Policy H7 : External storage  Policy ENV4 : Ridge and Furrow Fields 041 and 042  PolicyENV5 : Important Hedges  Policy T1: Transport Assessment for New Housing Development  Policy T6: Air Quality

b) Material Planning Considerations

5.6 Material Planning Considerations relevant to this application:

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

 National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

 Supplementary Planning Guidance

 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA, 2014)

255

 Housing & Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) (Final Report). (HENDA, Jan 2017)

 The Kibworths Settlement Profile (May 2015)

Overall Summary The Kibworths have the services to support their continued designation as a Rural Centre and a good range of further services, facilities and shops along with some employment opportunities. There is a significant amount of housing land available and the capacity to accommodate a substantial amount of growth providing development is sympathetic to the existing settlement form, the landscape setting, maintaining the separation with Smeeton Westerby, existing heritage assets, existing green infrastructure and the specific housing needs of the local population. Development would be expected to contribute to infrastructure requirements, particularly around GP surgery capacity and school extensions. A village bypass remains a community aspiration which will be considered in the preparation of a neighbourhood plan for the 2 parishes.

d) Other Relevant Documents

5.7 The following documents should be noted

 Circular 11/95 Annex A - Use of Conditions in Planning Permission  ODPM Circular 06/2005 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System)  Leicestershire County Council Highways Authority 6Cs Design Guide e) Other Relevant Information

Reason for Committee Decision 5.7 This application is to be determined by Planning Committee because of the size and nature of the proposed development (it is a “Major Application” Development Type).

6. Assessment

a) Principle of Development

6.1 The principle of the development of this by the erection of upto 195 dwellings including the location of the access from Fleckney Road has already been established by virtue of the grant of Outline Planning Permission 16/00166/OUT.

6.2 A decision to approve the development of the site by the erection of up to 195 dwellings was considered and accepted by the Planning Committee back in May 2017. However due to protracted negotiations and discussions with all parties in respect of the Section 106 Agreement and the requested community contributions the decision was not finally issued until January 2018.

6.3 Since the application was considered by the Committee last May The Kibworths Neighbourhood Plan has been ‘made’ and therefore this means it has become part of the Development Plan and, as such, together with the adopted Core Strategy is a

256

material consideration for the determination of planning applications within the parishes of Kibworth Beauchamp and Kibworth Harcourt.

6.4 Nevertheless outline planning permission has been granted and this establishes subject to conditions the principle of the development of this site for housing with its associated access and associated open space provision. b) Layout and Design

6.4 The Outline Planning permission was granted subject to a number of conditions including (Condition 2) that the details of the proposals should in general be in accordance with the principles and parameters described within the Illustrative Master Sketch Layout (SK01/Kib Rev B), submitted Design and Access Statement and GL0482 Landscape Note - 12-01-2017. A copy of the illustrative masterplan as approved is set out below.

Approved Illustrative Masterplan

6.5 The proposed detailed layout submitted as part of the Reserved Maters proposals is considered to be in general accordance with the Illustrative masterplan insofar as it (i) includes the access in the location agreed at outline stage, (ii) proposes up to 195 dwellings, (iii) has an internal road layout and location of formal and informal areas of open space and (iv) retains existing field boundary hedgerows and some lengths of internal hedgerow.

257

Illustrative Street Scene.

258

6.6 Access into the site is from a newly formed road junction leading off Fleckney Road. Details of this were approved at outline stage including the provision of a right turn land within the highway. Within the site the discreet housing areas are served of a hierarchy of road types. Although the site does extend up to and has limited frontage onto Warwick Road, no vehicular access from the site leads directly onto Warwick Road and existing hedges along this frontage are retained and maintained.

c) Housing

6.7 Within the site the proposals provide for a mix of house types including some apartments, some single storey bungalows and a range of 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedroom houses. A number of the properties are proposed as affordable dwellings in accordance with the requirements of the S106 Agreement and as discussed with the Council’s Housing Enabling and Community Infrastructure Officer.

6.8 Apart from the bungalows the majority of properties are 2 stories in height, although a number of 2 ½ storey dwellings, some terraced, some semi detached and some detached properties are included at various locations within the site. These are generally located at focal points within the development or where they frame a street scene. The Parish Council consider that the location and number of three properties and their location within the development does not accord with Policy H4 of the Neighbourhood Plan which states; 'On developments of ten or more dwellings, housing development should be predominantly two storey with any three-storey dwellings being spread throughout the development.'. The total number of 2 ½ storey dwellings within the development is 24. This equates to only 12% of the total number of dwellings, and as stated above these are spread throughout the development at key locations.

6.9 The Parish Council also refer to Policy H3: HOUSING MIX; which states; ‘To meet the future needs of the residents of the Plan area, new housing development proposals should provide a mixture of housing types specifically to meet identified local needs in the Kibworth villages. Priority should be given to dwellings of three bedrooms or fewer and to homes for older people. The applicants have comment that following earlier discussions the housing mix has been scaled back from what was originally proposed which consisted of fewer, larger properties. We are confident we are providing a reasonable proportion of 2 and 3 bedroom properties, in general accordance with the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA). When compared to other recently consented sites within Kibworth, the scheme provides a more ‘HEDNA compliant mix’.

6.10 The proposed housing mix as set out within the development including the affordable dwellings does provide a mix of housing types and sizes and even within the different bedroom numbers does propose and range of house sizes. As can be seen from the table below the scheme does provide a range of house/bedroom sizes with the overall percentage weighted in favour towards 1, 2 and 3 bedroom homes.

Number of Bedrooms Total Number % of total 1 14 7% 2 54 28% 3 58 30% 4 59 30%

259

4 10 5% Total 195 100%

d) Open Space

6.8 The site also includes three main areas of open space, 1 roughly centrally located within the site which includes a proposed area of public open space incorporating a Locally Equipped Are of Play (LEAP). 2 further areas are located towards the eastern end of the site and include an area of protected grassland as identified by the County Ecologist and a second which includes the sites sustainable surface water balancing pond and a protected area of ridge and furrow grassland. Through the centre of the site it is proposed to retain an existing area of hedgerow alongside which a footpath cycle link is proposed that would connect through the site and onto Gladstone Street. A further area of open space along the northern edge of the site would allow connection also to the development site currently being developed by Millers Homes. As a result some existing lengths of hedgerow are to be retained as well as those that border the site.

6.9 Detailed landscaping plans have been submitted to accompany the proposals. As a result of representations from the County Ecologist amendments have been made to the details to retain the area of ridge and furrow grassland that was originally identified to become an area of Public Open Space. In addition and as a result of representations from the Kibworth Bowls Club proposals for tree and shrub planting along the bowls club boundary have been amended. It is now proposed to plant varieties of shrub along this boundary which are of a species that would not have invasive roots that could damage the bowling green and by substituting shrubs for trees and loss of light or leaf fall will be minimised.

e) Community Facilities

6.10 The proposed layout does include an area outline in blue i.e. outside of the current planning application boundary but in the control of the applicants which is indicated as being retained for a potential community building.

6.11 The Parish Council has however commented that whilst developer has proposed a site and has offered to provide the land we are concerned that location, to the north- east of the development, would lead to an unacceptable amount of additional vehicle movements caused by people attending functions at the facility probably including youth activities on most nights of the week.

6.12 We also contend that this facility, which was proposed in the initial planning application (when it was located near to the entrance to the estate off Fleckney Road) should be provided (i.e. constructed) by the developer. The potential available community facilities funding would not provide enough finance for the project, neither has Kibworth Beauchamp Parish Council reserves to cover such an initiative. It is our view that gifting a redundant plot of land in a relatively inaccessible location, and which the community cannot afford to develop, cannot be seen as a positive contribution to the community.

6.13 The location of a site for a potential community facility was identified at the outline planning application stage, although it was made clear that the facility was not

260

considered necessary to make the development acceptable and as a result was not included as a requirement of the S106 obligations. The applicants have however commented that; In light of comments from an earlier meeting, DWH have increased the land area which was originally offered. The overall total area was increased to 1340 metres squared (0.33 acres), as opposed to 929 metres squared as it was originally; this is a 44% increase. David Wilson Homes are happy to gift this land, in good faith, to the Parish Council, or an owner of the Parish Council’s choosing, for the construction of a community facility. DWH are happy to submit an outline planning application for the principle of a community building on this land and it will be for the Parish Council to deal with the reserved matters which will include the detailed design, and also for them to apply for the funding that was provided via the section 106 agreement, and any other means available to them. The gifting of the aforementioned land is not a planning requirement, and should not be seen as a material consideration when determining the reserved matters application. The approval of the extant submitted reserved matters application is in no way contingent upon the outcome of the community facility land transfer.

6.14 To re-site the possible community facility building within the overall development would require a fundamental re-design on the whole scheme particularly given the areas that are to be retained for ecological reasons as Protected Grassland and Grassland in accordance with Condition 3 of the Outline Planning permission and as set out in the submitted layout. There is no formal requirement of the outline planning permission for either the provision of the land or the community facility building.

6.15 The location of the potential facility would require some additional traffic movements through the site, however, the highway authority did not raise any objections to this at outline stage. In addition the location does relate to the footpath network being prosed throughout the site and linking through to Gladstone Street. As a result it would be possible to access the facility from within Kibworth without the need to travel by car. f) Highways

6.10 Access into the site from Fleckney Road was approved as part of the outline planning permission and details of a proposed right turn facility within Fleckney Road were submitted and approved as part of the Outline Planning permission.

261

Proposed Site Access

Link Road

6.11 In addition a further issue arose during the consideration of the outline application relating to the development of the adjacent site to the north (now the subject of detailed approval by Miller Homes). In submitting a detailed proposal for the access the applicant proposed the potential for it to be upgraded to enable a bus service to run through the development in the future, if a vehicular connection is made through to the permitted development site immediately to the north.

6.13 This was the subject of consideration at outline stage, however, it was not considered necessary to require this connection by way of a planning condition or requirement of the S106 Agreement as the Highway Authority did not deem the link necessary to allow the development to come forward. Therefore to include such a requirement would not meet the tests set out in Paragraph 206 of the NPPF. As a result an informative was included advising the applicants that an access link was merely desirable.

6.14 The result is however that the applicants have decided not to include this link road through the development allowing the potential for connection to the development site to the north being developed by Miller Homes. Officers have sought to persuade the developers to include this link but they have repeated their decision not to include it. As a result there would be no possibility of bus services running through the development although it was established at outline stage that an additional bus stop would be provided on Fleckney Road in the vicinity of the site frontage to minimise the walking distance to bus stops from the development. As such it is considered that the development has made provision for improvements to public transport provision.

262

Parking

6.15 Within the site each of the proposed dwellings includes on site parking either solely as parking spaces or in some cases parking spaces and garaging. Policy H5 of the Neighbourhood Plan requires that; 'New residential development should incorporate sufficient parking provision to meet the needs of future residents in accordance with the Leicestershire parking standards except that 4+ bedroomed dwellings shall have a minimum of 4 off-street parking spaces within the curtilage of each dwelling.'

6.16 The applicants have responses to this by advising that whilst they have taken into account the policy, the application was approved prior to the adoption of the Kibworth Neighbourhood Plan in 16th May 2017, and therefore the parking requirements that apply to the application as required by Condition 9 of the Outline Planning Permission are set out in the 6 Cs Highway Design Guide and Manual for Streets. Notwithstanding this, DWH appreciates that parking is an important consideration for the Kibworths and as such all large 4 bedroom and 5 bedroom properties have been provided with 4 parking spaces. It is only the relatively small 4 beds that do not have 4 parking spaces. This goes above and beyond the national and Leicestershire standards which provided the context for which this application was approved. Practically, whilst many 4 bedroom properties may have 4 cars within the household, it is also commonplace that many 4 bedroom households will have less (for example those couples living in 4 bedroom properties with no children).

6.17 Details of the parking have been provided on the latest revision of the proposed layout and this identifies that as set out above the larger 4 and 5 bed houses have 4 parking spaces, the smaller 4 bedroom houses have 3 spaces and all remaining 2 and 3 bed houses have 2 spaces per dwelling. Whilst his does not therefore fully accord with the policy of the Neighbourhood Plan, it does partially achieve it and the parking provision is in accordance with the 6 C’s design guide and therefore in compliance with Condition 9 of the Outline permission.

g) Residential Amenity

6.18 A number of residents on Gladstone Street have raised concerns about the loss of privacy to their rear gardens due to the provision of a footpath link from the site through to Gladstone Street.

6.19 XXXXX

h) Other Matters

 Air Quality 6.20 Concerns have again been expressed by the local community with regards to the impact of the development on Air Quality and the need for an Assessment. Advice on this was sought at the Outline Planning stage from the Council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) who advised that the increase in annual average daily traffic along the A6 through Kibworth would be imperceptible to air quality models when compared to the current traffic flows as such air quality modelling would be unlikely to find the development would have any perceptible impact.

263

6.21 As the current proposals are the Reserved Matters relating to the outline permission previously granted for the 195 dwellings and is only considering to the Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale of the development and air quality was considered at the Outline planning application stage, no further assessment is considered necessary.

 Other issues

6.21. The impact of the development on existing services and community facilities formed part of the consideration and consultation on the proposals at the outline application stage. As a result contributions were sought and have been included in the S106 Agreement attached to the outline planning permission. These include contributions towards and range of Services and Facilities including Health, Education, Public Transport, Affordable Housing., Community Facilities and Libraries etc.

j) Planning Balance/Conclusion

6.22 The proposals have been developed following the grant of outline planning permission and have taken into consideration development plan policy as well as the requirements and conditions of the Outline Planning permission and the conditions attached to it. Having considered the proposals and the representations received it is considered that on balance the scheme is acceptable subject to the conditions set out in Appendix a.

6.23 The proposal accords with policies CS1, CS2, CS3, CS5, CS8, CS9, CS10, CS11, CS12 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy and Policies H3, H4 and H5 of the Kibworth Neighbourhood Plan and no other material considerations indicate that the policies of the Development Plan should not prevail. When assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 14 (presumption in favour of sustainable development), as well as the Framework taken as a whole, no significant and demonstrable harm is identified.

Appendix A Conditions

1 D12 Permitted Plans

The development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with the following approved plans

H6831_001_01 rev L, 002_01A, 003_01A, 004_01A, 005_01A, GL0822/01D, 02C, 03C, 04C, RD-SD13-106, DB-SD13-006, 100-01 and House Type Plans.

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt.

264