14/00833/FUL – Theddingworth Development of a renewable energy farm, to Abbey Renewables Solar Energy Limited include the installation of solar panels, Target Date: 12.09.2014 transformer rooms and plant, temporary access and on-site tracks, security fencing and cameras, landscaping and other associated works, at Land At Beeches Farm, Mowsley Road, Theddingworth COMMITTEE SITE VISIT

Recommendation:

REFUSE for the following reasons:

1. The proposal, by virtue of its size, siting and visual prominence, would appear as a dominant and visually intrusive feature in the landscape, and would detrimentally affect the character of this part of the Welland Valley landscape. The proposed development therefore fails to accord with Policies CS9 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy and paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The proposal, by virtue of its size, location and prominence, would appear as a dominant and intrusive feature, that would detrimentally affect the significance and setting of the Theddingworth Conservation Area and the Husbands Bosworth Conservation Area, the Grade I listed Church of All Saints Church, Theddingworth and the Grade II listed Theddingworth Lodge. The proposed development therefore fails to accord with Policies CS9 and CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy and paragraphs 132 and 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not detrimentally affect buried archaeological remains, and the application therefore fails to comply with Core Strategy Policy CS11 and paragraphs 128, 129 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Note: The decision has been reached taking into account paragraphs 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Site / Context:

The application site comprises an area of 60.55 ha, split into three fields, within attractive open countryside to the north-west of Theddingworth. The site is located in countryside between the villages of Mowsley (north), Laughton (north, both approx. 2.5km), Theddingworth (south-east, within 1km) and Husbands Bosworth (south-west, approx. 1.5km). The approx. OS grid reference for the site centre is SP 658 859.

The site forms part of the Swift valley floor, the valley falling relatively sharply from a height of c.172-174m AOD north-west, plateau between the A5199, Mowsley Chase Farm, through Mowsley Hills Farm falling gently eastward, before flattening out in the area around the Grand Union Canal. The low point in the area is east of the site, at 104m AOD east/south-east on the Station Road and Harborough Road.

The site itself slopes down gradually from its high point of 125m AOD at its north-west corner, eastward to 109m AOD at its north-eastern edge and south-eastward to approx. 115m AOD at its southerly extent. Its access onto the Bosworth Road rises, however, to approx. 130m AOD. The village of Theddingworth sits on a mini-ridge between two valleys, at approx. 132m AOD.

The site is currently used for agricultural purposes, enclosed by hedgerows, within which are found a number of mature trees, and bounded by other arable fields. Footpath A4 follows a 1

north-south axis, stopping at the Mowsley Road approx. 275m to the north of the site, while Bridleway A1, which also generally follows a north-south axis, from Mowsley Hills Farm to Husbands Bosworth, is at approx. 590m to the west of the site. Other than being open countryside, the site is not currently covered by any particular policy designation.

Residential properties Beeches Farm itself is within 100m of the site to the south-east, High View and Lark Rise (closest residential properties in Theddingworth village) are approx. 280–290m to the east, with properties at Hill View and The Bank at approx. 380–400m to the south. Dene Lodge is also situated approx. 200m to the south, Woodside Farm approx. 350m to the south and a barn conversion is situated approx. 250m to the west, while Lodge Farm is situated approx. 660m north/north-west of the site, and Mowsley Hills Farm approx. 1.6km to the north/ north-west. Ivy Lodge Farm is situated at approx. 1.2km to the north-east, and The Oaks on Gumley Road at 1.3km to the east.

Heritage assets Aside from those mentioned, the site is well away from any other built form, and is outside any village boundary or defined Limits to Development. The closest national statutory designation to the site is Theddingworth medieval settlement remains (Scheduled Monument) at approx. 300m east of the, with Pinslade moated grange (Scheduled Monument) at approx. 2km to the north-west and Saddington Reservoir (Site of Special Scientific Interest) at c.4km to the north- east. The closest listed building to the application site is the Thatched Cottage in Theddingworth approx. 370m to the south-east, with the Grade I listed Church of All Saints Theddingworth at approx. 480m to the south-east, and the Grade II listed Theddingworth Lodge at 660m to the north-west. There are 4no Grade II listed bridges on the Grand Union Canal (No. 48 at c.590m, No. 51 at c.980m, No. 52 at c.1.2km and No. 53 at c.1.45km). The Grand Union Canal Conservation Area comes within 150m of the site to its west, while the site is also close to the Theddingworth Conservation Area.

The Proposal:

Under the amended plans, the proposal is for the use of the site as a ‘solar farm’, consisting of 111,978 solar panels and therefore having an installed capacity of around 26.9 MW of renewable energy. This is equivalent to the annual energy needs of around 8,150 typical households. (In the 2011 census there were a total of 34,900 households across the District.) The proposal is for a temporary period of 25 years. After this period the site would be decommissioned and the land returned to agriculture.

The panels would be mounted on a metal frame at a maximum height of 2.1m, although the submitted Landscape and Visual Assessment (Pegasus Group, May 2014) states that the panels would rise to a max. height of 2.4m at the highest point. The panels would be orientated 25 degrees from the horizontal. The panels would be fixed structures rather than tracking structures (the latter would follow the path of the sun during the day). The panels would be fixed to the ground using piles or ‘ground screw’ that are driven into the ground at an average depth of 1 – 2m. There would be no concrete foundations.

The panels would be constructed with a protective aluminium frame, with the front face of the panel made from a sheet of glass covered with a non-reflective coating, in order that the maximum amount of light is absorbed by the photovoltaic cells, improving efficiency and minimizing glare.

The panels would each measure c.1m wide by 1.6 – 1.65m tall, and would be arranged in a “double portrait configuration” in rows, facing south. Each row, known as a string, would be separated by approx. 4 to 5 metres. Due to the irregular shape of the site, two sets of string arrangements are proposed. One set would hold 46 panels and of c.23 metres long, while the other would hold 24 panels and of c.12 metres length. The strings would run across the field, forming a regular pattern. 2

It is stated that the proposal intends to allow the potential for sheep grazing and chicken keeping between and underneath panels and a typical section is shown in support of this:

A gap of circa 600m will be left at the bottom of the panels to allow machinery to be used to maintain the land between and around the panels.

A number of ancillary works would be necessary to facilitate the use of the site including: • A 2m high security fence and deer fencing, which would be designed to allow the movement of small mammals into and out of the site • 21no invertor (steel) cabinets (2.9m height, 2.1m depth, and between 3.78 and 5.18m width) with a network of cable runs to feed electricity to the sub station Although the submitted LVA states that the inverter cabinets measure “12.2 x 2.4 x 2.9m” • 1x Customer Switch Room = 6.1m x 2.8m x 3.53m (high) on Plan PIP/TH/5 • 1x Monitoring House = 5.88m x 2.28m (footprint) x 2.79 m (high) on Plan 2.3 • 1x Auxiliary Transformer = 2.8m x 2.8m (footprint) x 2.5m (high) on Plan 2.2.2 • 1x DNO Substation = 5.1m x 4.7m (footprint) x 3.4m (high) on Plan PIP/TH/6

And: • Security fencing; Deer fencing; CCTV cameras • A network of internal roads with a gravel finish – the cable runs would follow the roads fence and therefore set back from the site boundary) • On-site access tracks for maintenance purposes • Temporary access track for delivery • An extensive landscaping scheme is proposed comprising hedging and tree planting on the boundary of the site. The hedges would be 1m high when planted in double rows and grown to 3m in height.

Other points of note are as follows:- • There would be no external lighting. • The solar panels would have a dull matt blue colour • The frames would be a dark colour and the panels are designed to absorb rather than reflect light so glare would be kept to a minimum • The top soil would not be stripped • The site would be supported by a comprehensive landscaping scheme including on and off site planting (trees and hedgerows), wildflower and grass planting between the panels and a 30m buffer of grassland between the edge of the development and the panels. The buffer is increased to 50m with Holbrook Wood. 3

• It would be possible to graze animals around the panels, the site would be set down to grass • The applicant has confirmed that there is sufficient capacity at the substation to accept the energy that would be produced by the solar park.

The amended plans are as follows:

- Amended site location plan (plan number 13.53.OP1 Rev B) - Amended site layout plan (plan number A.0257_06-G) - Amended site masterplan (plan number 13.53.HED2 Rev A) - Landscape and Visual Assessment Addendum (produced by Pegasus) - Construction Access Layout Plan (plan number A252/03 Rev A) - Swept Path Analysis (plan number A252/04 Rev A)

The amendments to the proposal are as follows:

- Site area – reduced to 60.55 ha from 75ha (an approx. 20% decrease in its size) - Power output – reduced from 30MW (125,415 solar panels) to 26.9MW (111,978 panels) - Removal of northern field from proposal – in response to Parish and Landscape Partnership’s concerns with regard to landscape and visual effects - Additional landscaping introduced at the site boundaries – in response to Parish and local residents’ concerns re visual amenity and landscape effects - Re-location of sub-station – now located to the north of the site, and only one sub-station is now proposed - Amended layout around the pond within the site - Gas pipeline line proximity – amended in order to provide a 12.2m stand off from the location of the underground gas pipeline, to respond to the National Grid’s comments - Additional landscaping within the site - (Temporary) vehicular access – relocated in order to minimise harm to the loss of the hedge fronting Bosworth Road and in order to provide additional and appropriate visibility at the access. Applicant states the access location has been chosen having regard to the quality of the hedge and the visibility which can be provided - Deletion of access previously proposed from Mowsley Road – no longer deemed necessary - Tree copse removed – not considered to provide sufficient benefit to warrant its inclusion; replaced by dense planting along the northern boundaries of the site - Layout amended close to The Farmhouse – in order to improve the relationship with the existing dwelling and to soften the impact of views from Mowsley Road. This has also reduced the scale of the development.

EIA Screening Under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 the proposed development is not EIA development, i.e. it does not meet the thresholds therein (relating to number of turbines, generating capacity and the proposal’s relative strategic importance), and so an Environmental Statement has not been required or submitted.

Policy:

National Planning Policy Framework (published 27.03.2012):

Paragraphs 9, 13, 14, 17 (presumption + core planning principles), 18 – 20 (economy), 29 – 36 (transport), 56 – 66 (design), 69, 70, 75 (healthy communities), 93 – 99 and 100-104 (climate change and flooding), 109 – 125 (natural environment), 126 – 139 (historic environment), 186 – 206 (decision taking)

Local Policy:

Harborough District Core Strategy: CS5 – Providing Sustainable Transport 4

CS8 – Protecting and Enhancing Green Infrastructure CS9 – Addressing Climate Change CS10 – Addressing Flood Risk CS11 – Promoting Design and Built Heritage CS17 – Countryside, Rural Centres and Rural Villages

Harborough District Local Plan: RM/8 – Sites of local ecological or geological interest

Other UK Renewable Energy Strategy (DECC, 2009) Wind Energy and the Historic Environment (English Heritage, 2005) Climate Change Programme (DCLG, 2006) Planning for a Sustainable Future: White Paper (DCLG, 2007) Meeting the Energy Challenge – a White Paper (HMSO, 2008) Harborough District Landscape Character Assessment (2007) Planning for Climate Change (supplementary national guidance) (April 2012) BRE Planning Guidance for the development of large scale ground mounted solar PV systems (2013) UK Solar PV Strategy: Part 2 (October 2013, updated April 2014) The national Planning Practice Guidance Suite (06.03.14) Appendix A to Circular 11/95 – Use of conditions in planning permission Circular 06/2005 – Biodiversity including statutory obligations within the planning system

Consultations:

National Bodies:

Natural England: No objections. Comments on individual subject areas as follows:

SSSIs No objection – no conditions requested. This application is in close proximity to Coombe Hill Hollow Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Natural England 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 site has been notified. We therefore advise your authority that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application.

Agricultural land No objection – no conditions requested. The proposed development would not appear to lead to the loss of over 20ha ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land (paragraph 112 of the Framework).

The Agricultural Assessment submitted with the application explains that the proposal seeks to develop a solar park on approximately 75ha of land predominantly in agricultural use. Of that area, approximately 72ha of land is in arable production. The remainder consists of recently planted woodland and a pond. Although the proposal will result in the loss of 72ha of land from agricultural production for the lifetime of the solar farm, a detailed Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) survey carried out in May 2014 concluded that the land is of subgrade 3b quality which means that there will be no loss of ‘best and most versatile’ (BMV) agricultural land.

The proposed development is unlikely to lead to significant and irreversible long term loss of agricultural land, as a resource for future generations. This is because the solar panels would be secured to the ground by steel piles with limited soil disturbance and could be removed in the future with no permanent loss of agricultural land quality likely to occur, provided the 5

development is undertaken to high standards. Although some components of the development, such as construction of a sub-station, may permanently affect agricultural land this would be limited to small areas. In the short-term we recognise that it is likely that there will be a loss of potential agricultural production over the whole development area.

We would also advise your authority to consider applying conditions to secure appropriate agricultural land management and/or biodiversity enhancement during the lifetime of the development, and to require the site to be decommissioned and restored to its former condition when planning permission expires.

Other advice We would expect the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to assess and consider the other possible impacts resulting from this proposal on the following when determining this application:  local sites (biodiversity and geodiversity)  local landscape character  local or national biodiversity priority habitats and species. Natural England does not hold locally specific information relating to the above. These remain material considerations in the determination of this planning application and we recommend that you seek further information from the appropriate bodies (which may include the local records centre, your local wildlife trust, local geo-conservation group or other recording society and a local landscape characterisation document) in order to ensure the LPA has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal before it determines the application. A more comprehensive list of local groups can be found at Wildlife and Countryside link.

Biodiversity enhancements This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the Framework. Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that, “Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity¡¦. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that ¡¥conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat”.

Green Infrastructure potential The proposed development is within an area that Natural England considers could benefit from enhanced green infrastructure (GI) provision. As such, Natural England would encourage the incorporation of GI into this development. Multi-functional green infrastructure can perform a range of functions including improved flood risk management, provision of accessible green space, climate change adaptation and biodiversity enhancement. GI can be designed to maximise the benefits needed for this development. We strongly encourage you to share this advice with the applicant to maximise opportunities to incorporate green infrastructure during the development of the detailed proposal.

Environment Agency: No objections, but wishes to make the following comments.

The submitted Flood Risk Assessment identifies that there will be a minimal increase in impermeable area as a result of the development and that cut off swales will be provided to intercept any overland flows, hence the reason why we have no objection to the development as proposed on flood risk grounds.

An ordinary watercourse runs along the south-western edge of the application site. We recommend that the Lead Local Flood Authority (Leicestershire County Council) is contacted

6

regarding any potential consenting requirements. We also recommend that the pollution prevention measures for working near to watercourses as given at the following website are followed: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/works-in-near-or-over-watercourses- ppg5-prevent-pollution

During the period of construction, oil and fuel storage will be subject to the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001. The Regulations apply to the storage of oil or fuel of any kind in any kind of container which is being used and stored above ground, including drums and mobile bowsers, situated outside a building and with a storage capacity which exceeds 200 litres. A person with custody or control of any oil or fuel breaching the Regulations will be guilty of a criminal offence. The penalties are a maximum fine of £5000 in Magistrates' Court or an unlimited fine in Crown Court.

English Heritage: You have consulted us on a substantial solar farm development located adjacent to the village of Theddingworth which contains a number of listed buildings including the Grade I listed church of All Saints in the Conservation Area alongside a substantial Scheduled Monument comprising the earthwork and below ground remains of the medieval and early modern settlement.

The Grade I listed church of All Saints Theddingworth, the Conservation Area and other listed buildings and the Scheduled Monument named 'Medieval settlement remains 230m north-west and 140m west of the junction of Main Street and Hothorpe Road' comprise an integrated group of heritage features the significance of which is experienced in its landscape setting. The proposed development has the capacity to cause harm to the significance of these designated heritage assets through dominance in important views, an issue treated in detail in the National Planning Policy Framework, the Planning Practice Guide and our guidance on the Setting of Heritage Assets. There is also potential for impacts upon undesignated archaeological remains within the site itself and intrusion into views from the Grand Union Canal (parts of which are a Conservation Area). Also potentially affected are the important westerly views from Pinslade Moated Grange a Scheduled Monument located to the north-west of the development site. The grange has important and structured views looking across towards Lubenham perhaps associated with medieval hunting. Whilst we note that a degree of attention has been paid to setting back the development from the village on the eastern side and to strengthening planting in this respect your authority should consider whether this is sufficient to effectively prevent the visual dominance of the development and seek with the developer similar solutions on the northern and western faces of the site in respect of the other assets identified (and the grade II listed Theddingworth Grange). With regard to below ground archaeological remains and other heritage matters we refer you to the expert advice of the County Council Development Control Archaeologists.

We advise that robust measures are required to manage impacts upon the historic environment should your authority be minded to consent this scheme.

Recommendation We recommend that your authority consider the advice given above and seek to address the issues outlined should you be minded otherwise to consent this application, and in any event determine the application in line with national and local planning policy and guidance.

National Grid: National Grid has No Objection to the above proposal which is in close proximity to a High- Pressure Gas Pipeline – Feeder 02 Duddington to Churchover.

Please note the following caveats: - All panels must be placed outside of the 12.2m easement distance. - National Grid must be allowed access at all times in case of maintenance. - A Deed of consent would need to be agreed with National Grid for any cables that need to cross the gas pipeline. 7

- Protection for the pipeline would need to be arranged for any construction vehicles that need to cross the pipeline.

Leicestershire County Council:

LCC Ecology: The ecology report submitted with the application (Avian Ecology, May 2014) indicates that the application site itself was of relatively low ecological value, comprising predominately of arable fields and species poor hedgerows.

The ecology report concludes that there will be very little impact on GCN, should they be present as the habitat is currently sub-optimal. The GCN survey submitted in support of the application (Avail Ecology, July 2014) is based on the use of eDNA testing. This is a new technique and the first time we have seen it used locally. However, the report does state that the testing was completed using the methodology required by Natural England, at the correct time of year and we therefore consider that the results are acceptable.

No evidence of GCN DNA was found within any of the ponds and it can therefore be concluded that the likelihood of them being impacted by the development is low. We therefore do not consider GCN to be a constraint to this development but would request that the recommendations within this report are followed.

I have not seen the confidential badger survey. If this can be provided I would be pleased to make comments. The results of this may influence the design of the fencing.

We consider that the site layout could be changed slightly to allow for a biodiversity gain in the area. The line of a dismantled railway crosses the site (extending west to east where the plantation woodland is). We would request that consideration is given to extending this line as a hedgerow across the application site. This would assist in restoring a wildlife corridor.

LCC Conservation Officer: The site is set within an area of pleasant countryside that contributes positively to the setting of several village conservation areas and part of the Grand Union Canal Conservation Area; all designated heritage assets. Your authority when considering development proposals has a 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 a conservation area. The conservation of heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, ‘so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations’, is also one of the 12 core land-use planning principles set out in the NPPF. Paragraph 132 of the NPPF requires 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’. It is relevant to note in this case that the NPPF confirms that significance can be harmed through development within the setting of a heritage asset.

It is clear from the legislation and national planning policy directives, therefore, that the setting of heritage assets is often an important factor in their special interest or significance and that it can include the environment in which a place or building is experienced. Development which has an adverse impact on the setting of designated heritage assets must be scrutinised very carefully, and, according to the NPPF resisted where harm to the historic environment is not outweighed by wider public benefits.

Our visit demonstrated that the expansive renewable energy farm or park will, particularly when seen from public roads and footpaths to the south of the site, intrude into the landscape setting of several conservation areas, particularly Theddingworth and the Grand Union Canal but also Husbands Bosworth. The existing aspect across open and continually changing agricultural land will be replaced by regimented rows of harsh industrial looking solar panels and the associated equipment. They will bring an unwelcome urbanising influence and deprive the rural settlements 8

and a section of canal of part of the established rural landscape that contributes to their significance. Some of the locations we considered are to the south of the heritage assets and the rear of the panels as they rise up the sloping land to the north are likely to be as intrusive as the reflective panels facing the sun.

The physical surroundings of a heritage asset, including topography, are one of the attributes English Heritage suggest should be taken into account when assessing whether setting makes a contribution to significance in their published guidance on The Setting of Heritage Assets. A strong visual and functional connection exists between the villages in the area and the surrounding farmland. The canal also has a close relationship with the landscape in which it is located as the topography largely determines the line of the route. I am pleased that the submitted Heritage Statement acknowledges these important links at paragraphs 6.12, 6.19 6.32 and 6.33; many similar applications have failed to do so in the past.

I agree with the conclusion reached in the Heritage Statement that the level of harm to significance of the designated heritage assets in the area is less than substantial. I must, however, disagree with the opinion expressed on page 5 that “as the proposed development will not result in substantial harm or total loss to the significance of any of the identified designated heritage assets the development will not be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework”. It does not follow that if the harm is less than substantial little weight should be given to the conservation of these assets. As noted above the Framework makes it clear that great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets and if it is concluded that the benefits of the scheme do not outweigh the less than substantial harm to the several assets the application should be resisted. It is pertinent to note that recent appeal decisions reported in the planning press suggest that the Secretary of State currently attaches considerable weight to the protection of designated heritage assets even where the impact of a development on the setting of such assets is predicted to cause less than substantial harm to their significance.

There are considerable public benefits, and private financial rewards, to be gained from energy produced from renewable resources but in this case the same output could presumably be achieved on a less sensitive site elsewhere. Planning Practice Guidance states at Paragraph 19 states that:-

“A clear understanding of the significance of a heritage asset and its setting is necessary to develop proposals which avoid or minimise harm. Early appraisals, a conservation plan or targeted specialist investigation can help to identify constraints and opportunities arising from the asset at an early stage. Such studies can reveal alternative development options, for example more sensitive designs or different orientations, that will deliver public benefits in a more sustainable and appropriate way”.

Clearly those preparing schemes are supposed to consider in detail at an early stage the impact of a proposal on a designated heritage asset and ensure that any harm to the historic environment is minimised by, for example, changing the design or location. I am not aware that these requirements have been explored fully in this case and regret that the existing planting and proposed additional landscaping will not screen the development from the key viewpoints we noted during our visit.

Heritage assets are irreplaceable and any harm or loss, even where it is less than substantial, requires clear and convincing justification. I regret that the proposals, as submitted, will result in harm to significance and relevant national planning policy requiring the conservation of designated heritage assets should, therefore, weigh against the development.

LCC Archaeology: The application site lies close to a number of significant heritage assets, including the Scheduled medieval settlement remains and Conservation Area at Theddingworth (SM ref: 30252), the Grand Union Canal Conservation Area, and Listed Buildings in nearby settlements. 9

We have identified views of the application site from the Church and Scheduled Monument at Theddingworth and Listed canal bridges to the north of Theddingworth, and views that include other heritage assets such as Husbands Bosworth Church. In our opinion, the change in character of this land from open and agricultural to something modern and semi-industrial in nature will adversely affect the setting of designated heritage assets, and we would recommend seeking the advice of English Heritage and your Conservation Officer on this aspect.

The Leicestershire and Rutland Historic Environment Record (HER) shows that the application site lies within an area of archaeological interest, as confirmed in the submitted Heritage Desk- Based Assessment (Cotswold Archaeology report 660266). This assessment has identified the potential for Prehistoric and Roman archaeological remains to be present within the site. Additionally, the archaeological bank mentioned in paragraph 4.23 (HER ref: MLE2513) appears to lie WITHIN the application site, in an area that is marked on Location Plan 13.53.HED2 as ‘Temporary Access for Construction Traffic’. However, the nature and significance of this bank, which is thought to underlie and therefore pre-date the medieval Ridge and Furrow earthworks, has not been given consideration and no details have been provided of the proposed ground impacts in this area.

Field evaluation in the form of non-intrusive survey (fieldwalking or geophysical survey) and trial trenching is required to confirm the significance of archaeological remains within the application site, in line with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Section 12, paras. 128, 129 & 135.

The preservation of archaeological remains is, of course, a “material consideration” in the determination of planning applications. The proposals include operations that may destroy any buried archaeological remains that are present, but the archaeological implications cannot be adequately assessed on the basis of the currently available information. Since it is possible that archaeological remains may be adversely affected by this proposal, we recommend that the planning authority defer determination of the application and request that the applicant complete an Archaeological Impact Assessment of the proposals.

This will require provision by the applicant for:

• A field evaluation, by appropriate techniques including geophysical survey and trial trenching, to identify and locate any archaeological remains of significance, and propose suitable treatment to avoid or minimise damage by the development. Further design, civil engineering or archaeological work may then be necessary to achieve this.

This information should be submitted to the planning authority before any decision on the planning application is taken, so that an informed decision can be made, and the application refused or modified in the light of the results as appropriate. Without the information that such an Evaluation would provide, it would be difficult in our view for the planning authority to assess the archaeological impact of the proposals.

Should the applicant be unwilling to supply this information as part of the application, it may be appropriate to consider directing the applicant to supply the information under Regulation 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Applications) Regulations 1988, or to refuse the application. These recommendations conform to the advice provided in DCLG National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Section 12, paras. 128, 129 & 135).

Should you be minded to refuse this application on other grounds, the lack of archaeological information should be an additional reason for refusal, to ensure the archaeological potential is given future consideration.

The Historic & Natural Environment Team (HNET), Leicestershire County Council, as advisors to the planning authority, will provide a formal Brief for the work and approve a Specification for the Assessment at the request of the applicant. This will ensure that the necessary programme of archaeological work is undertaken to the satisfaction of the planning authority, in a cost- 10

effective manner and with minimum disturbance to the archaeological resource. The Specification should comply with this Department’s “Guidelines and Procedures for Archaeological Work in Leicestershire and Rutland” and relevant Institute of Field Archaeologists “Standards” and “Code of Practice”, and should include a suitable indication of arrangements for the implementation of the archaeological work, and the proposed timetable.

LCC Highway Authority (LHA): No objections subject to conditions re (1) details of a suitable, fit-for-purpose temporary means of access for construction traffic, (2) gates set back a distance appropriate to the largest type of vehicle likely to require access to the development behind the highway boundary and shall be hung so as not to open outwards, (3) access gradient, (4) drainage, (5) a full construction traffic management plan, including wheel cleansing facilities, vehicle parking and turning facilities and a timetable for their provision, and (6) details of the routing of construction traffic. The LHA recommends that the details of the routing of construction traffic are included in a Section 106 legal agreement.

LCC Public Rights of Way: No comments received

Harborough District Council:

HDC Environmental Services: No comments received

Neighbouring Planning Authorities:

None

Parish Councils:

Mowsley: STRONGLY OBJECTS, for the following reasons:

(1) This is a very extensive development covering four fields and approximately 52 hectares in area. It is on ground sloping approximately 55 feet to the North East. The associated buildings are comparatively small being little more than a large double garage and are unlikely to intrude noticeably on the landscape. The solar panels will be arranged in rows running East/West and slope towards the South sloping 8 feet towards ground level being 10 feet high at the top.

The site will be readily visible from the escarpment of the Mowsley and Laughton Hills. However, as the panels are at an angle of 25° to the ground the face of the panels will not be visible from most of this escarpment. The impact of the proposal on the landscape from the North will be less than that from other directions. It is however, within the area designated as the Welland Valley Landscape Character Area and its approval will have a lasting detrimental impact.

(2) Harborough District Council (HDC) still has no exact policy relating to similar projects merely assessing each application as it is presented. HDC should be ensuring that Green Field sites are adequately protected and that projects such as these should be constructed in Brown Field sites. Central Government advises that such developments are best suited to the sides of motorways and main communications arteries and not in an area which is trying to promote itself as a tourist area, built, as this one is, around Foxton Locks, The Laughton Hills and the North Kilworth Marina.

(3) The site in question is potentially good farmland and as such should be protected. (4) The Application is contrary to HDC Policies CS9, CS11 and CS17

11

(5) The size of the development is disproportionate to the size of the closest village, Theddingworth, and will “stick out like a sore thumb” within an area of natural beauty.

Theddingworth: Objection on behalf of Theddingworth Parish Council: We are mindful of the need for increased renewable energy generation but, in this case, there are a number of reasons for objection. 1) The loss of 70 hectares of arable land for at least 25 years. 2) The proposal includes a suggested planting scheme to reduce the visual impact. This will take some years of growth to make any difference, particularly in winter when the hedges and trees will mostly be quite bare. It will in any case have little effect on the view of the site from the north which will always overlook it. 3) Lack of suitable vehicular access during the construction period. Access from the A4304 has been refused in the past for safety reasons and Mowsley Road together with either Taylors Lane or Station Road would be inadequate. 4) Para 7.6 of the Desk Based Land and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) states: The proposed solar park is considered to be a medium scale development. It is by industry standards a large-scale park and it covers an area which is several times the built area of Theddingworth Village itself. This is of particular significance due to its extremely close proximity to the village. 5) Para 7.25 of the LVIA states: Whilst the site is rural in nature, the nearby farms all feature collections of large-scale buildings with metal roofs and there are other infrastructure influences in the immediate vicinity. The proposed solar park would add an additional infrastructure element into a landscape that already contains similar influences within the wider area. This is proposed as a justification for creeping industrialisation of a site which is still rural in nature and adjacent to other farms and barns involved in agriculture. 6) We consider that the scale of the site and its location will have a seriously detrimental impact on the setting of the following heritage features: All Saints Church Theddingworth, Grade 1 listed and dating back to Norman times, Theddingworth Conservation Area, Grand Union Canal Conservation Area, The scheduled Medieval Village. 7) We regard the proposal as conflicting with the Harborough District Core Strategy policies as follows: CS 8 para 5.95. CS 9 points (a), (e) ii, iii, vi. CS11 points (a), (b), (d). CS17 point (c).

Husbands Bosworth: The Councillors object to this proposal on the grounds that it is too large a project for an area which has been designated a Landscape Character Area and is therefore in contravention of Policies C58 and CS17 of the Harborough Core Strategy.

Laughton: Objects to the proposal on the following grounds:

There can be no argument that the UK needs to generate more electricity. However, it is just as important that we retain as much agricultural land as possible. The application site is not derelict or unused land, but has the capacity to grow good crops. Simply because the Applicant has earmarked the site as a suitable location, should not mean that we should lose any valuable arable land.

The scale and massing of this development would not only have an overbearing impact on the Theddingworth Conservation Area, but also result in a significant adverse visual impact towards the Laughton Hills. It is proposed that regular planting will take place to give continuous screening around the site throughout the whole year, but this will be impossible to achieve in the winter months.

Renewable energy should be environmentally friendly, but this site, and the connection to the National Grid at Shearsby, will have a highly disruptive impact on the local environment. 12

It is stated that after some 25 years the land will be decommissioned and returned to agricultural use. We have no assurance that this will actually happen. If HDC is minded to approve this application, it is important that the permission stipulates, in a legally binding document, the necessary decommissioning process including the payment of all costs, thereby obligating the Applicant to comply.

We therefore consider that this application conflicts with Policy CS9 (e) (ii), (iv) and (v) of the Core Strategy and request that the Council refuse permission.

Sibbertoft: Considers it outside its jurisdiction to comment on this application

Elected Members:

Cllr Blake Pain None to date

Local Bodies and Other Consultees:

Leicestershire Constabulary: The Ramblers (Leicestershire & Rutland Area): Leicestershire and Rutland Bridleways Association & the British Horse Society: No comments received from the above

Representations: Four site notices has been erected (one in each village of Theddingworth, Laughton, Mowsley and Husbands Bosworth). In addition, neighbour consultation letters were sent out to the geographically closest residents.

Letters of objection from 93 addresses have been received, and 1 letter of support.

The letters of objection have been received from the following places; issues raised include:

38 Husbands Bosworth 18 Theddingworth 19 Mowsley 4 Laughton 3 Lubenham 2 Kimcote 2 North Kilworth 2 Smeeton Westerby 1 Tur Langton 1 Willey 1 Braybrooke 1 Leicester 1 Winnoth Dale, Tean, Stoke on Trent

Landscape and visual effects (1) Scale of proposal – Totally disproportionate to the surrounding, beautiful countryside; size and scale of proposal is outrageously large / excessively large having regard to its locality / frightening and totally at odds with the natural surroundings; many times greater in size to the nearby surrounding villages / far too large and overbearing in relation to the surrounding villages; industrial size of proposal, which has no equivalent in the area; would completely overwhelm and destroy the beauty of this village and the surrounding countryside; the village of Theddingworth in particular is very small and this solar farm is set to be one of the largest in the country – it therefore seems unfair to attach it to such a small village. The Wilburton solar farm, 13

described as “enormous” in the local press, is only 35 acres (14 hectares), which is approx. 20% of the proposed Theddingworth solar park which makes the size and scale of the proposed development quite staggering and difficult to comprehend. The size of the proposed area involved is TWICE the size of the Commonwealth Games Athletes village in Glasgow which is housing over 6500 people. Proposal is essentially a power station in one of the nicest and unspoilt corners of the Leicestershire countryside. It appears to be larger than many solar farms already up and running in the UK. (2) Adverse effect on the landscape / character and appearance of the countryside; proposal would scar this beautiful local/Welland Valley landscape forever; the site would be readily visible from the escarpment of the Mowsley and Laughton Hills and being within the area designated as the Welland Valley Landscape Character Area would have a lasting detrimental impact; would be an eye-sore; enormous visual impact; would be a severe blot on what is a beautiful landscape; would be an incongruous and unsightly feature; would become a dominant man- made feature within the natural environment; the proposal’s regimented rows of hard surfaced solar panels would represent intrusive, utilitarian elements on an industrial scale in this open countryside; the proposal would have a considerable ‘urbanising’ impact in this rural location, and would detract from the distinctive topography of the site and its surroundings; by virtue of its size, siting and visual prominence, together with its accompanying security cameras, electricity substations and ancillary container-like cabins, would be highly visually intrusive, detrimentally affecting the countryside character; would ‘conclusively’ conflict with Core Strategy Policy CS17, which lists the Welland Valley and Laughton Hills as two of the five identified Landscape Character Areas; both were assessed as having a relatively low capacity to accept additional development; the surrounding landscape forms a natural amphitheatre – set in a valley being overlooked from the Laughton Hills, and the villages of Theddingworth, Mowsley and Husbands Bosworth. Proposal would significantly detract from the character and quality of the landscape, by virtue of large expanse of development. The topography of the area is just not suitable for this development as the solar panels would be on sloping and irregular ground making them visually obtrusive. The Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) believes that any such farms should not "harm the views in sensitive or valued landscapes". Photos of the Wilburton solar farm demonstrate that lines of solar panels tend to reflect one large solar panel as opposed to individual lines increasing the impact further. Concerns about long distance views from surrounding hills and public footpaths, esp evident from Viewpoint 8 of LVIA. Part of the quality of the area is its rural character which is relatively unchanged. The proposal would be visible from this position and would have an adverse impact upon the rural quality and character of the area. Does nothing to protect and enhance the character of the natural landscape. The proposal would become the defining element in the landscape. Proposal is a wanton attempt to destroy historic and cherished landscapes. The proposal may not technically be classified as a change of use of the land away from true Agricultural, as the proposed mixed grass/wildflower ‘crop’ which may be used to graze sheep under the ‘suspended PV panels’ may be said to retain the land in agricultural use, but it is surely SEEN as something different – little more than green vandalism, a black/grey sea of silicon slabs on dull & winter days, and bright glinting reflective sheets as far as the eye can see on bright days. We will be facing a gigantic perceived change of use for this farmland. (3) Lack of designation doesn’t change proposal’s impact - This area used to be designated an Area of Particularly Attractive Countryside (a local designation). The only thing that has changed is that the designation has been lifted. But it remains particularly attractive countryside. (4) Out of keeping with the character of the area – would stick out like a sore thumb within an area of natural beauty; the proposal would not be in keeping with the agricultural landscape; would compromise the sense of rural isolation and seclusion in the area between Husbands Bosworth and Theddingworth and the traverse along the Grand Union Canal which runs to the west, north west and north of the proposed development. The stark contrast of the panels to the agricultural landscape would be detrimental to the overall aesthetics of the area. “The Welland Valley, praised for its views from the surrounding hills, would be blighted by this monochrome, Meccano construction”; proposal is dedicated to an activity – production of electricity – which is alien to the area’s prevailing and historical agricultural base (5) Visual impact greater than claimed – The applicant states that the site cannot be seen from a public road, public footpath, bridleway or other public land. This is not true. Hedge planting as 14

suggested around the solar array site would mitigate its impact on landscape character. However, the proposed hedging would take time to mature and would not completely screen the development, particularly in the winter months. Even when the hedge was in full leaf, there would still be a perception of the development beyond, and the site would be visible from many public vantage points, inc from nearby higher level land and from Station Road. (6) Magnitude of impact – Application submission suggests that the development would not be fully screened for the first five years; while acknowledging the proposal is for 25 years, five years is still a long time to impact on views, security and outlook; the proposed hedgerow along the eastern side of the proposal is totally inadequate and is merely a token gesture. (7) Visual impact from intended National Grid connection, apparently at Shearsby …would have a further detrimental effect on an attractive area of countryside in the locality, “either by the erection of disfiguring pylons across the landscape or by the construction of new underground cabling causing significant disruption to surrounding countryside and agricultural land.”

Environmental effects (8) Impact for climate change – No way this proposal would aid our adaption to climate change. Solar Parks in the UK are proven to be hopelessly inefficient due to our climate, and their output therefore can only be made up in relation to the energy needs of our Grid by means of inefficient, stand-by gas powered generators; proposal would conflict with Core Strategy Policy CS9. The applicant, to an extent, concedes that the proposal fails to accord with Policy CS9. How can one “put a price tag on the terrible damage it would do to the unspoilt landscape in the area. Going "Green" is all very well but it should not be at any cost and in any location” (9) Drainage / environmental damage – concerns that a huge array of impervious and flat panels would substantially alter absorption and / or drainage of rainwater, as well as adversely affecting the growth of vegetation beneath them; therefore may contravene at least the spirit of CS9 as well as failing to protect the green infrastructure in contravention of CS8. (10) Carbon footprint – The total environmental impact of the proposal should be assessed; the carbon footprint of all the materials used to construct this type of installation should be noted; this would have to include the Rare Earth Elements used in the panels, approx. 97% of which are Chinese sourced and therefore not subject to the same rigorous standards of production as would be applicable in many developed countries.

Other adverse effects (11) Adverse effect on the setting of heritage assets – proposal is sited far too close to the Conservation Area and the Grand Union Canal (proposal is within 200m of the latter); would directly impact on the adjacent Grand Union Canal Conservation Area; adverse impact on the setting of the Grade I listed All Saints Church at Theddingworth as well as the Grand Union Canal and Theddingworth Conservation Areas, and Theddingworth Lodge. The setting for the village's significant listed buildings should be protected. The proposal would be detrimental to the setting of Theddingworth village and to local Scheduled Medieval remains. (12) Adverse effect on local highway safety; the A4304 is busy enough with heavy traffic, so during the construction of this project it will be a major problem; the plans appear to have inadequate road access, and the commentary on the level of increased traffic during construction, and on going maintenance on an already extremely busy and main thoroughfare is insufficient; proposal would lead to an increase in the amount of traffic using the main and subsidiary road networks. In conjunction with Pebble Hall renewable energy plant it would add to the already worrying traffic problem on a particularly dangerous section of the A4304. The A4304 is a well known accident blackspot. The proposed access point is on an unrestricted stretch of road with restricted views towards the village and is dangerous. Any distraction from the road while driving between Husbands Bosworth and Theddingworth could be potentially fatal. Furthermore access and egress directly onto the A4304 should also be discouraged due to the high speed at which people drive along this stretch of road. (13) Inadequacy of Taylors Lane and a section of Mowsley Road, which are in a very bad state of repair. Despite its condition being reported to the local highway authority on several occasions during the last 12 months, nothing has been done to remedy its neglected state. We are told that Theddingworth is a low-priority area and that financial constraints mean that we cannot expect that any repairs will be implemented in the near future… Reason for the roads’ 15

deplorable state is obvious: HGVs (of at least three times the weight restriction of 7.5 tonnes) and heavy farm traffic associated almost exclusively with Beeches Farm use this lane on a daily basis. The roads are simply not able to cope with this constant onslaught and have deteriorated accordingly. Any further traffic here would only add to what is quickly becoming an impossible route to navigate. (14) Impact on residential amenity - the building of the site and the work needed to connect to the National Grid will be very disruptive; it would be clearly visible from our village, Husbands Bosworth; the proposal would be visible from houses in Station Road and outlying properties in Theddingworth and Husbands Bosworth. Adverse impact from noise from the construction of the development; the traffic and noise would become intolerable. (15) Detrimental impact on wildlife, hikers, horse riders and bird watchers; The proposal would adversely impact on the users of the Grand Union Canal and tow path which runs close to the application site. (16) Loss of prime agricultural land, which should be used for growing food and rearing animals, and not used for solar panels; green spaces be kept for the purpose of providing food; better uses for farm land than solar power; the site in question is potentially good farmland and as such should be protected; the proposal has no place on productive arable / agricultural land; this is good farmland producing good crops for food; very valuable plot of excellent agricultural land – the Welland valley is renowned for producing some of the best beef and crops in Leicestershire, so it should definitely not be covered over with acres of solar panels; the proposal would unnecessarily deprive the local area of acceptable farming land which is a feature of the area in which it resides; would lead to more importing of foodstuffs. Although the land appointed for the proposed solar farm is described as medium quality, it has been in continuous use by the applicant for growing crops. It is understood “that there is no land with an Agricultural Land Classification of 1, 2 or 3a in Leicestershire and that these fields are the same quality as the rest of the county.” The guidance as issued in the House of Commons oral statement of 29.01.2014 by the then Planning Minister, Nick Boles, applies to this case. Mr Boles stated that, "…where significant development is necessary on agricultural land, the [Framework] is equally clear that Local Planning Authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality in preference. Where land is designated at a relatively high grade it should not be preferred for the siting of such developments.” The NFU President Peter Kendall and the Governments chief scientific officer Professor Sir Mark Walport, have BOTH stressed the importance of safeguarding our shrinking agricultural land, confirming that Farmland is ‘far too Valuable to lose’ and we should put a higher priority on agricultural land, we have LIMITED farmland, and food supply concerns, food importation (and the accompanying CO2 argument aligned to it) and dependence on other countries to feed the UK‘s expanding population highlights the need to maintain our productive agricultural land bank to produce ARABLE crops, and not to cover it in solar panels that can be sited more appropriately elsewhere,’ (17) The submitted soil quality assessment “can only be interpreted as errant nonsense” – apart from a very small area close to the Mowsley Road, which is improperly drained, the whole of the site is able to support magnificent harvests year-on-year. “Most genuine farmers would give their eye-teeth for the opportunity to farm such fertile land. To classify this soil as sub-standard merely shows that the criteria used in reaching this assessment are faulty. I doubt that there are many farms in the whole of the county which could match the yields of this site” (18) Adverse effect on soil quality - Should this application be approved, the soil quality would doubtless be reduced (by 25-30 years of lying fallow) to such an extent that it would be effectively worthless in terms of its agricultural viability. “Perhaps this is what the owners are hoping for green-field land becoming brown-field land becoming ultimately industrial development land (the holy grail).” Proposal would take out of production a large area of fertile arable land to be replaced with low quality sheep grazing which is a backward step (19) Impact on aviation – the CAA is apparently looking to develop a policy on ‘PV solar systems and its impact on Aviation,’ a cause for concern locally given the development and increase in activity seen and planned for East Midlands Airport and its main approach routes over the village; the proposal has the potential for glint, and to some degree glare - albeit

16

reduced in part due to an anti-reflective coatings on the panels – this can be seen as a potential problem. (20) Potentially adverse effect on local tourism – many visitors from the canal and walkers through the surrounding area, and with horse riders and cyclists and the advent of North Kilworth Marina added to Foxton Locks the area is becoming a broader recreational and leisure facility; the site is also close to the tourist attractions of Naseby Battle sites and the Jurrassic Way; those visitors may be disinclined to come to the area; proposal would make it the area less attractive for those visiting local village pubs and activities; tourists like ourselves would have to find other areas to visit and stay instead, if this local development goes ahead (21) Adverse impact on wildlife – Proposal should include greater provision for biodiversity enhancements - Management of the ponds, encouragement of great crested newts, bird and bat boxes provided, wildflower meadow, bee hives etc. (22) Loss of hedgerow that would obviously need to happen to construct the site (23) Impact on the gas pipeline - Would this be vulnerable to the proposed piling? (24) Cumulative impact - Theddingworth has been already blighted by a Northamptonshire approval for a recycling and energy generating facility (Pebble Farm) - how much more does it have to take? Proposals for two renewable energy facilities at Pebble Hall Farm Theddingworth, which is only 500 metres from the site of this proposal and of the village itself, have already been submitted to Daventry Council. Disproportionate amount of renewable energy in the local area – the current influx of 'green' energy developments into the local area seems completely disproportionate to the average rate at which they are being developed nationally. This would tend to imply it is because developers see Harborough and surrounding areas as a soft target where planning is granted relatively easily.

Benefits Vs Adverse effects (25) Local Plan policy conflict - Proposal would conflict with Core Strategy Policies CS7 (provides no extra employment in this area), CS8 (would irrevocably mar two of our identified Landscape Character areas, the Welland Valley and Laughton Hills); appears to be outside any village "envelope", on agricultural land; for what is the purpose of the Harborough Core Strategy policies if they can so clearly be ignored. (26) Planning balance – The proposal’s benefits do not outweigh the substantial detriment that it would cause to the landscape and village setting and it would be harmful to an unacceptable degree (27) Approval would set an unwelcome precedent to allow other “environmentally flawed but subsidized money-making developments free access to our countryside”; would set a very dangerous precedent for any similar open countryside land in Harborough District (28) Proposed mitigation – concern over robustness of landscaping proposals and the lack of screening in the interim period whilst tree and hedgerow buffers grow. The LVIA indicates that the planting will not be effective in screening at a minimum end of year 5 and more reliably end of year 10. (29) Lack of local / community benefit – either monetary or employment; little or no benefit to the local community; no obvious benefit to the local community including no obvious employment opportunities. No apparent advantages or benefits at all to the local villages either in employment terms or in locally sourced and lower, cost effective energy to residents or the any of the communities nearby. There should be opportunity for Parish Council to benefit more directly from the proposal by way of contributions to local services and needs, i.e. unilateral undertaking whereby the developer agrees an annual monetary contribution towards specific projects within the parish. Also, agreements with local schools, scout groups, Women’s Institute, etc. for training, open days, educational tours etc. In South Northants the Parish secured developer installation of solar panels on their community building for free, maintain them for 5- 20 years and transfer the ownership of the panels to the PC so they benefitted in full from the feed in tariff (UU attached to representation letter). The LPA cannot require the developer to do this as it is not in accordance with CIL or S106 guidelines. However, the Parish can request it to the LPA and they can notify the developer of the request. “Theddingworth has had enough with Developers trying to rape the tranquillity of the area for profit”

Location / Alternatives 17

(30) Yes to solar but not in this location – “I am very keen on renewable energy but this plan really does not make much sense”. The need for solar power and other renewable energy / low carbon footprint projects is acknowledged, but not at the expense of our countryside / this is not the best location for a development of this magnitude. The importance of providing sites for renewable energy in understood, and it is equally understood that Leics and North Northants have to take their fair share of this kind of development. The challenge to planners and decision makers is to locate these kinds of developments where the good they create is, by another calculation, lost because of the loss of some beautiful countryside that generations to come could enjoy and cherish, much as we do at the present time. It would be a terrible mistake to allow the destruction of this site and to deny its enjoyment to current and future generations for short term gain for a few. (31) Alternatives – There are many brown field sites / commercial buildings with vast amounts of roof space which should be used for the placement of solar cells, and many private dwellings which should be encouraged to adopt solar technology. Why can't the planners get solar panels installed on large industrial units such as Magna Park as part of the planning conditions without blighting the countryside? Solar parks should be sited in less sensitive, flatter locations where the impact on the natural landscape is less significant and less dominant / not in areas which are of great natural beauty. “It is interesting to note that the Abbey Renewables Group is located is Whittlesey in the fens as solar parks are better suited to this flatter landscape and hence are located close to their anticipated market place”; diversification of this kind is best suited to smaller and more discrete projects or adjacent to already developed sites.

Application submission (32) Lack of detail – re proposed fencing - should have a green finish or thin, see-through mesh; re security of the floodlighting; CCTV (33) Misrepresentative viewpoints - Only five out of the nine viewpoints recommended in HDC’s pre-application advice have been covered adequately and the photographic montages provided are misleading particularly Viewpoint 5 where the oak trees on the left obscure the view of the village and the Listed Grade I Church by taking 10 paces to the right the village and church are in full view on the skyline. Similarly Viewpoint 8 covers such a large expanse of land that the village and church lose their importance. This application has been very cleverly timed in the summer months when there are maximum leaves on the trees and hedgerows and the views will look very different for the six winter months of the year. (34) Failure to adequately assess the proposal’s visual impact on the outlook of properties in Husbands Bosworth. Objector lives on Honeypot Lane; their garden and property enjoys “splendid uninterrupted easterly views down the valley to Theddingworth and beyond all the way to Foxton. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment fails to adequately assess the visual impact on residents that live along Honeypot Lane in Husbands Bosworth and that further assessment is required in order to properly determine the impact. (35) Anomalies in the information submitted between the planning statement and the landscape and visual impact assessment, which state different heights of solar panels. The planning statement states a maximum height of 2m whereas the impact assessment states a height of 3m on page 13. There is a significant difference between the two (36) Lack of EIA – Should be a requirement to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) given the size and scale of the proposed development. The proposed development falls within Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations 2011 as an "industrial installation for the production of electricity exceeding 0.5 hectares". The size and scale of this proposed development cannot be underestimated and I feel that a further more detailed EIA is needed to properly assess the impact (37) The resultant glare from the panels has not been satisfactorily considered. (38) Pre-application advice – The proposal submitted by the applicants has not addressed some vital HDC pre-application advice particularly relating to surrounding areas and villages of Husbands Bosworth. The plans have totally failed to adequately assess the visual impact of the proposed development on the village of Husbands Bosworth. The Pre-application advice letter from HDC dated 23.05.14 requested that viewpoints from the village of Husbands Bosworth be covered within the visual impact assessment. No viewpoints from Husbands Bosworth are shown in the visual impact assessment report. The report states views of the site from 18

Honeypot Lane and Mowsley Road were not easy to discern. Given the size of the development it is particularly disappointing to note that the applicants have failed to provide the photographic montages from the various viewpoints suggested by the Planning Officer and indeed those provided are carefully chosen.

Other issues raised (39) Lack of infrastructure – the local area does not have mains gas and suffers some of the lowest broadband speeds in the country. (40) Improving local infrastructure would have a better environmental impact – Mains gas has a lower CO2 impact than the alternatives of wood, coal and oil. Electricity in the UK is still primarily fossil fuel derived, but is also more expensive per Kwh for heating, so there is no incentive to use it even if it were from renewable sources (such as the proposed solar farm). A Broadband speed increase would encourage more homeworking and reduce car emissions of CO2. (41) Lack of need - National quotas have already been met. The scheme has not been adequately justified. The planning statement states that it is not necessary to demonstrate the need for renewable energy as it is well established and supported by national policies. This is inadequate and further, more detailed information should have been submitted to justify the estimated levels of electricity generation figures and directly comparing such benefits alongside the dis-benefits of the scheme. (42) Conditions required should permission be granted, e.g. development limited to 25 years; landscape management plan, details of fencing, biodiversity enhancement scheme; restoration scheme (for decommissioning phase); construction management plan; no lighting without prior consent; panels removed in their entirety in the event they are unused for a continuous period of 12 months. (43) Concerned that areas of sparse population (e.g. Laughton hills and the upper Welland Valley) are being let down by the UK planning laws, esp. the Home counties-centric government; sparse rural populations suffer because there are few local residents living there. This means that there are few local people to raise objections to the rape and pillage of the countryside. This appears to be especially an issue near to the county borders of Leicestershire and neighbouring counties, where almost anything goes. (44) Conflict with ministerial advice - Public concern for this type of development led the Government itself to issue a new solar strategy on 04.04.2014 (Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)), which says: “the emphasis for growth should be away from large solar farms.” recommending instead the preference for more solar panels on rooftops of commercial buildings and to install panels on all buildings in the Government estate, including 24,000 schools, MOD sites.” The DECC confirms themselves that the solar farms “can have impacts on visual amenity… having a negative impact on the rural environment”. The Minister for State declared preference for solar energy growth by making sure the focus of growth is on brownfield sites and domestic and industrial roofs, not on greenfield sites in the country, and is introducing new planning guidance we understand “making it easier for people to put large solar installations on industrial roof space, factories and industrial units roofs and wasteland.” It is also understood that HDC has received a letter from the Minister, “to reinforce the need for robust local planning regarding solar farms”. In his address to the solar industry in July 2014 the Minister of State declared, 0“…to be absolutely clear, we do not support unlimited solar development on prime agricultural land. Such developments with negative impacts on food production, landscape and communities do not form part of our ambitious vision for UK solar. Our policy approach is to encourage deployment of solar PV on buildings and brown-field land – not green-field sites – and the Renewables Obligation subsidy structure has been revised by this Government to provide a higher rate of support to brown-field developments.” (45) Amendments – Several objectors have written to advise that the amended proposals do not change their views; phrases are repeated such as “I/ we’lI continue to object” and “does nothing to address…” (46) Relevant appeal decisions – an objector refers to an appeal decision re Hive Energy’s proposal at Tattingstone, Suffolk (appeal dismissed). The Inspector Elizabeth Ord “makes it clear that large-scale solar farms should focus on previously developed and non-agricultural land.” 19

Non-planning matters raised: (1) Impact on property values (2) Taxpayers will be paying for its construction, and also paying a premium price for using any power it produces! (3) Viability – would this still be viable without the present subsidies available till April 2015? Without a massive political subsidy there is no financial or environmental case for Solar Power in the UK. Proposal is “taking advantage of the loop hole in the law regarding these Solar Parks which will be "closed" next April.....too late for US if this is given planning permission!” (4) “Resent having our pockets picked to subsidise so-called ‘green’ schemes that cannot break even financially when in fact our electricity costs would be substantially less without them. All of the money that has been wasted on these schemes could, by now, have built nuclear power stations and “scrubbed the coal fired stations exhaust output” and left the population with an essential and reliable electricity power supply for our modern country and in the longer term wait for fusion power to become available. The government was advised about the approaching power crisis at least 20 years ago but as usual sat on their hands, went for cheap votes aboard the green issue bandwagon and have failed to deal with the approaching energy crisis.” (5) The application should be refused and further it be made clear that future similar applications must properly address the challenges set out in CS9, CS11 and CS17. The massive commercial prize of permission being granted does mean that substantial funds are readily available for these issues to be properly addressed. (6) Benefits of proposal only private – the only beneficiaries in this speculative venture are the applicants and Marriott Farming (Inc.). (7) Consultation - Poor public consultation lack of notification and attempt to provide public awareness to residents in Husbands Bosworth who will undoubtedly be affected by the development both during and post construction. (8) Not wanted by local people (9) Local highway improvement works - It is odd that after years of neglect LCC Highways has issued an advanced notice that Taylor Lane and Station Lane, both of which would feed this site, are being repaired and resurfaced in September. The timing could be seen as unfortunate in the scheme of things (10) HDC shouldn’t even be considering this application - “I cannot believe an application such as this could even be considered, its tantamount to a criminal offence” (11) Harborough District Council’s motives – “It has been apparent to many villagers in Husbands Bosworth and surrounding areas that Harborough Council [is] carrying out a quite relentless strategy in turning the area into a combination of urban sprawl and industrial estate, rather than [its] stated [Core Strategy]. Enough is enough. The only benefit I can see of such a development is if it did anything to alleviate the almost endless power cuts Husbands Bosworth experiences year after year. Failing that it is just another example of Harborough preferring profit to the well-being of Council tax payers.” “Does HDC have a vendetta against this part of the county?” “There seems to a determination to ruin a beautiful village (mentioned in the Doomsday Book), with a barrage of applications disguised in the name of renewable energy but in fact selfish greed on the part of local farmers with their snouts in the trough for profit. Wake up HDC you, like us who have to look at these monstrosities will regret it.” (12) The landowner’s motives - the application for a temporary road is a Trojan horse. “It is well documented that the Marriott family [has] made several attempts over the last decade to convert their ever increasing amount of barns, which are mainly empty into light industrial units. This temporary road follows the exact route of the permanent road that was applied for access to these Farm buildings and refused by the Highways Dept. Once the road is temporary installed it is our fear that it will become permanent for these Farm buildings.” (13) Core Strategy / Evidence base - It would seem simply pointless for HDC to undertake comprehensive studies of its area and to then properly develop a principles based document setting out the appropriate criteria for development, only to have a massive development of this nature ride roughshod over same.

20

The letter of support, received from an address in Market Harborough, raises the following issues:

(1) The threat of global warming and climate change is the greatest challenge facing us today. (2) This renewable energy farm may well not be a pretty sight but in the long term this is a price worth paying to reduce carbon emissions and save our planet for our grandchildren. We have less than ten years to act before we pass the tipping point.

Other Information:

Public Rights of Way: Footpath A4 follows a north-south axis, stopping at the Mowsley Road approx. 275m to the north of the site, while Bridleway A1, which also generally follows a north-south axis, from Mowsley Hills Farm to Husbands Bosworth, is at approx. 590m to the west of the site.

History: None relevant

Supporting Information: The applicant’s submission considers the following issues:  Planning Statement, which considers the proposal’s benefits and a summary of its effects  Landscape and Visual impact, including some photomontages and wireframes  Agricultural land  Ecology / Biodiversity  Heritage assets  Archaeology  Transport  Flood Risk Assessment

Policy Overview:

Section 38(6) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning applications be determined in accordance with the relevant polices contained within the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. At the present time the Development Plan for the site comprises the adopted Harborough District Core Strategy, and the retained polices of the Harborough District Local Plan (HDLP). National guidance in the form of the National Planning Policy Framework, together with Government White Papers and Reviews, is also relevant.

Climate Change: Change in global and regional temperatures and precipitation patterns is a natural phenomenon and there have been a number of cooling and warming periods over the last millennium. However, in the late 1980s, a growing concern emerged that the climate was being influenced by man beyond these normal fluctuations.

Studies into the evidence for and implications of climate change have been largely co-ordinated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environmental Programme. Its remit is to study historical evidence for climate change up to the present, modelling climatic processes and the future climate change scenarios, identifying regional variations in climate change, quantifying the risk of potential global and regional effects of climate change and recommending mitigation and adaption measures for the international community and individual governments.

21

In 2007 the IPCC stated that it is unequivocal that climate change is happening and it strengthened its conclusions as to the causes of the temperature rises. Evidence of climate change is all around us. On average summers are getting warmer and winters milder. This reflects the global rise in temperature identified by the IPCC: “Eleven of the twelve years (1995 – 2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperatures (since 1850)” These increases in temperature are having global environmental effects.

In tandem with the increased recognition of the threats arising from climate change the decline in the UK’s natural oil and gas reserves, the increasing age of its nuclear power stations and forthcoming environmental restrictions on coal fired electricity generation all conspire to raise the prospect of an energy deficit and security of supply, the latter resulting from a greater dependence upon imported fuels.

The Annex to the EU Directive identifies various overall targets for Member States (2020) for the percentage share from renewable sources in final energy consumption. The UK figure is set at 15%. Yet the country still shows no sign of meeting even the earlier 2010 target of 10%. The recent UK Renewable Energy Strategy aspires to achieving a UK figure of 30% electricity generated from renewable sources.

The fact that the need for renewable energy stems from the supranational level is crucial, as has been recognized by Government. It means that, in drawing any planning balance, considerable weight is to be attached to bringing forward any relevant renewable energy project, while recognising the need to sensitively exploit the local environment.

The government states that renewable and low carbon energy are important because,

“Increasing the amount of energy from renewable and low carbon technologies will help to make sure the UK has a secure energy supply, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to slow down climate change and stimulate investment in new jobs and businesses. Planning has an important role in the delivery of new renewable and low carbon energy infrastructure in locations where the local environmental impact is acceptable.” (NPPG, March 2014)

The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (published July 2009) suggests ways in which the tensions caused by high levels of renewable energy production can be eased. These were stronger national planning policy statements, developing a clear deployment strategy at a regional level and resolving potential conflict with other national Government policies through the development of memoranda understandings to provide clarity on the scope and applicability of UK and EU environmental regulation.

National Guidance: The Energy White Papers of 2003 and 2007 provide the broad context for planning policies concerned with renewable energy, stating that renewable energy is key to the Government’s strategy for tackling climate change and, “supporting the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate”. The Government’s aspiration is for renewables to grow as a proportion of the UK’s electricity supplies to 20% by 2020.

Core Planning principle in the Framework para. 17 states: “[Planning should] support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change, and encourage the use of existing resources, including conversion of existing buildings, and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy).”

Paragraphs 93 to 98 explain that planning plays a key role in supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure by planning for new developments, actively support energy efficiency improvements to existing buildings and set local area requirements for zero carbon buildings. In determining applications new 22

development should comply with local plan policy regarding decentralised energy supply and take account of landform, layout building orientation, massing and landscaping to minimise energy consumption. An application should be approved, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise, if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.

In respect of the historic environment the statutory requirements of Sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 are of particular relevance. The first requires that special regard shall be paid to the desirability of preserving Listed Buildings or their settings or any other features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. The second requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas.

The government’s UK Solar PV Strategy (2013, updated 2014) states that the government’s ‘big ambition’ for solar power must be matched by, “a much greater sensitivity to impacts on landscape, visual amenity and biodiversity… Local communities must be willing partners in solar expansion; not just consulted but respected and wherever possible, financial partners in local projects". The document sets out four guiding principles which form the basis of government’s strategy for solar PV:

i. Support for solar PV should allow cost-effective projects to proceed and to make a cost- effective contribution to UK carbon emission objectives in the context of overall energy goals – ensuring that solar PV has a role alongside other energy generation technologies in delivering carbon reductions, energy security and affordability for consumers.

ii. Support for solar PV should deliver genuine carbon reductions that help meet the UK’s target of 15 per cent renewable energy of gross final consumption by 2020 and in supporting the decarbonisation of our economy in the longer term – ensuring that all the carbon impacts of solar PV deployment are fully understood.

iii. Support for solar PV should ensure proposals are appropriately sited, give proper weight to environmental considerations such as landscape and visual impact, heritage and local amenity, and provide opportunities for local communities to influence decisions that affect them.

iv. Support for solar PV should assess and respond to the impacts of deployment on: grid systems balancing; grid connectivity; and financial incentives – ensuring that we address the challenges of deploying high volumes of solar PV.

The document says the UK’s planning regimes "include robust safeguards to ensure that developments, including solar PV installations, are properly sited and that individuals, communities and the landscape itself are protected against any unacceptable impacts".

National Planning Practice Guidance (nPPG) This guidance to interpretation of the Framework, for the benefit of decision makers, agencies, applicants and members of the public, was published 06.03.2014. It states,

“The National Planning Policy Framework explains that all communities have a responsibility to help increase the use and supply of green energy, but this does not mean that the need for renewable energy automatically overrides environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities. As with other types of development, it is important that the planning concerns of local communities are properly heard in matters that directly affect them.”

“In considering [the local potential for renewable and low carbon energy generation], the matters local planning authorities should think about include:  the range of technologies that could be accommodated and the policies needed to encourage their development in the right places;

23

 the costs of many renewable energy technologies are falling, potentially increasing their attractiveness and the number of proposals;  different technologies have different impacts and the impacts can vary by place;  the UK has legal commitments to cut greenhouse gases and meet increased energy demand from renewable sources. Whilst local authorities should design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy development, there is no quota which the Local Plan has to deliver.”

“There are no hard and fast rules about how suitable areas for renewable energy should be identified, but in considering locations, local planning authorities will need to ensure they take into account the requirements of the technology and, critically, the potential impacts on the local environment, including from cumulative impacts. The views of local communities likely to be affected should be listened to.”

“In …considering planning applications in the meantime, it is important to be clear that…  local topography is an important factor in assessing whether wind turbines and large scale solar farms could have a damaging effect on landscape and recognise that the impact can be as great in predominately flat landscapes as in hilly or mountainous areas;  great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting;  protecting local amenity is an important consideration which should be given proper weight in planning decisions.”

What are the particular planning considerations that relate to large scale ground- mounted solar photovoltaic Farms? “The deployment of large-scale solar farms can have a negative impact on the rural environment, particularly in undulating landscapes. However, the visual impact of a well- planned and well-screened solar farm can be properly addressed within the landscape if planned sensitively. Particular factors a local planning authority will need to consider include:  encouraging the effective use of land by focussing large scale solar farms on previously developed and non agricultural land, provided that it is not of high environmental value;  where a proposal involves greenfield land, whether (i) the proposed use of any agricultural land has been shown to be necessary and poorer quality land has been used in preference to higher quality land; and (ii) the proposal allows for continued agricultural use where applicable and/or encourages biodiversity improvements around arrays. See also a speech by the Minister for Energy and Climate Change, the Rt Hon Gregory Barker MP, to the solar PV industry on 25 April 2013.  that solar farms are normally temporary structures and planning conditions can be used to ensure that the installations are removed when no longer in use and the land is restored to its previous use;  the proposal’s visual impact, the effect on landscape of glint and glare (see guidance on landscape assessment) and on neighbouring uses and aircraft safety;  the extent to which there may be additional impacts if solar arrays follow the daily movement of the sun;  the need for, and impact of, security measures such as lights and fencing;  great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting. As the significance of a heritage asset derives not only from its physical presence, but also from its setting, careful consideration should be given to the impact of large scale solar farms on such assets. Depending on their scale, design and prominence, a large scale solar farm within the setting of a heritage asset may cause substantial harm to the significance of the asset;  the potential to mitigate landscape and visual impacts through, for example, screening with native hedges; 24

 the energy generating potential, which can vary for a number of reasons including, latitude and aspect. The approach to assessing cumulative landscape and visual impact of large scale solar farms is likely to be the same as assessing the impact of wind turbines. However, in the case of ground- mounted solar panels it should be noted that with effective screening and appropriate land topography the area of a zone of visual influence could be zero.”

Local Policy (Harborough District Core Strategy): Policy CS9 states that development which adapts to climate change and helps to reduce the District’s carbon emissions will be supported. Development will be directed towards the most sustainable locations and militate against any potential impacts on the environment, and the use of renewable and low carbon energy sources are promoted. Policy CS9 also states that energy generation will be supported, where the proposal:

(i) Ensures that the most appropriate technology is selected for the site; (ii) Ensures that the siting of development avoids harm to the significance of a heritage asset, whether designated or not, and its setting; (iii) Ensures that the impact of the development on local landscape character and historic landscape character is minimised; (iv) Ensures that the siting of development does not create a significant noise intrusion for existing residential dwellings; (v) Includes measures to mitigate against any adverse impacts on the built and natural environment resulting from the construction, operation and decommissioning of any equipment/infrastructure; (vi) Does not create an overbearing cumulative noise or visual impact from renewable energy developments when considered in conjunction with similar developments and permitted proposals within the District and within adjoining Local Authority Areas.

Policy CS5 states that the majority of future development will be located in areas well served by local services to reduce the need to travel, where people can gain convenient access to public transport services for longer journeys and where local journeys may be undertaken on foot or by bicycle

Policy CS8 (d) states that the Council will protect, manage and enhance the District’s biodiversity, and avoid demonstrable harm to habitats or species which are protected or which are of importance to biodiversity.

Policy CS10 states that new development will be directed towards areas at the lowest risk of flooding within the District.

Policy CS11, among other things, requires development to be of a scale, density and design that would not damage quality and character of areas in which they are situated, and which respects the context in which it is taking place. It also states that new development affecting Conservation Areas (CAs) should be sympathetic to those characteristics that make CAs special.

Policy CS17 lists development required for renewable energy production alongside agriculture, woodland management, sport and recreation and local food initiatives as being appropriate development in the Countryside. CS17(c.) states that rural development must be located and designed in a way that is sensitive to its landscape setting, safeguards important views, and protects the landscape setting of individual settlements.

Harborough District Local Plan (HDLP) The HDLP was adopted in 2001, with 2006 as its original end date. As a result of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Government allowed some Local Plan policies to be ‘saved’ beyond 27th September 2007 until the Local Development Framework (LDF) is adopted, and some of these have been retained until such time as an Allocations DPD (and other 25

necessary DPDs/SPDS) has been adopted. The only retained policy of particular relevance to this application is RM/8 (Sites of local ecological or geological interest).

Planning Considerations:

In light of this policy overview, especially paragraphs 93 to 98 of the Framework and Policies CS9 and CS17 of the Core Strategy, current planning policy is clearly very supportive of the principle of renewable energy development. Each proposed development will present material considerations which must be assessed individually and then balanced together before making a final judgement on the merits of the detailed proposal in question. Each of the principal land- use planning considerations is assessed in turn under the following section headings:

 Contribution to Renewable Energy Generation  Loss of agricultural land  Landscape and Visual Impact  Cumulative Impact  Visual Intrusiveness and Impact to Residential amenity  Historic Environment  Ecology & Ornithology  Hydrology and flood risk  Highway safety  Other matters, including equine, decommissioning and reversibility

Contribution to Renewable Energy Generation When determining planning applications for development of the type proposed it is reasonable and proper to attach weight to the contribution they would make to the region’s renewable energy generation. The proposal would make a considerable contribution in this regard, with its power output (26.9 MW) the equivalent of 10 – 11 of the largest wind turbines, and this is a material consideration which weighs very strongly in favour of the proposal.

Loss of agricultural land: The LPA must consider the quality of the agricultural land within the application site. Agricultural land is graded, 1 to 5, with 1 being of the highest quality and 5 the lowest, and Grade 3 being subdivided into two groups. Grades 1, 2 and 3a are considered to be of higher quality. Paragraph 112 of the Framework states that areas of “poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality”, with the nPPG adding that, “large scale solar farms should be fosussed on previously developed and non-agricultural land”.

In providing guidance on paragraph 112 of the Framework, the nPPG advises that it applies, “where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary”. The nPPG also says that, where a proposal involves green field land, it must be demonstrated that the proposed use of agricultural land “has been shown to be necessary”, and that “poorer quality land has been used in preference to higher quality land”.

Taken together, these statements suggest a requirement to assess whether development of the application site is necessary, and therefore a consideration of alternative sites. This appears to be confirmed by recent appeal decisions1. The applicant advises that urban sites, including brownfield sites, will command higher land values and thus render the proposal unviable, and that such sites will usually be allocated for other purposes and thus not be policy-compliant. The applicant also states that to use brownfield land for such development would place greater pressure on green field sites for permanent development such as new housing and commercial

1 APP/D3505/A/13/2204846 (10MW, Wherstead, Suffolk, paras 63 – 87), and APP/D0840/A/13/2202450 (4.8MW, Tideford, Cornwall, paras 29 – 31, 35 & 36), although APP/Y1138/A/13/2203766 (Willand, Devon, para 12), a 3MW proposal on Grade 3b land, and APP/D0840/A/14 2212340 (Newquay, Cornwall), a 10MW proposal on mixed Grade 3a/3b land, do not apply a sequential test. 26

development. Lastly the applicant cites the proposal’s reversibility and the benefits of farm diversification for the landowner.

Notwithstanding these arguments, was the land to be Grade 3a or higher, when taken together government guidance and recent appeal decisions (see above) strongly suggest that the applicant should be required to demonstrate that there are no other available sites of lower environmental value.

However, in this instance, all of the surveyed site is Grade 3b, i.e. of ‘moderate’ quality. It is noted that “two areas, extending to approximately 15 ha in total, were not surveyed” and that these have been estimated to be Grade 3b. At least one of these two areas is the field not forming part of the amended proposal. In summary, therefore, it is considered that, while not poor, none of the site is of the higher quality that would make the loss of agricultural land a significant issue.

Finally, the nPPG advises that the proposal should allow for continued agricultural use. The applicant advises that the site may continued to be used for sheep grazing and there is nothing to suggest that this will not be the case; in any event, since it is encouraged by the government, this continued use could be required by condition if considered necessary.

Landscape and Visual Impact: The application site is located approx. 2.5km north of Mowsley and Laughton, approx. 1km north-west of Theddingworth and approx. 1.5km north-east of Husbands Bosworth. The proposal solar panels, covering a site of approx. 60ha, would be readily discernible in the landscape from a variety of vantage points and would have a demonstrable visual impact. There are clear and applicable policy criteria on landscape and visual impacts to instruct decision makers, aided by the Harborough District Landscape Character Assessment (2007)2 (HDLCA), and the applicant’s landscape consultant (Pegasus Group) analyses the proposal’s visual effects in the context of this document.

The HDLCA identifies the site as being within the Welland Valley Landscape Character Area. This is described as being “well defined in terms of topography and location” and following “the wide shallow valley” of the River Welland, the river itself forming the boundary between Leicestershire and Northamptonshire. The area is mainly a mix of “medium sized agricultural fields enclosed by mixed hedgerows with some evidence of hedgerow removal” and has “extensive views across the valley but is enclosed by ridges of higher land from the adjoining character areas particularly to the north”. With regard to its topography, the Welland Valley is wide and flat with “sloping, shallow valley sides that stretch to the steeper ridges to the north which form the boundaries to adjacent character areas; High Leicestershire and the Laughton Hills.”

The HDLCA identifies the Welland Valley as a “generally flat floodplain with predominantly agricultural land use” with views extending “across the majority of the valley” due to the lack of vegetation cover across the floodplain, with a medium capacity3 to accept small scale development. It adds that, “areas further from Market Harborough, within the more rural areas, have lower levels of capacity and development should be avoided.” It is noted that this assessment chiefly focuses on residential and commercial development, rather than renewable energy. Key issues include:

• 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, above the ridgeline to the north and adjacent to enclosing landscape features to the west and south. It is important that care is taken

2 Harborough District Landscape Character Assessment (2007) 3 ‘Capacity’ here is considered to refer to residential or employment development rather than to renewable energy 27

to prevent further new development that impacts on the ridgeline and valley base, as well as views from the wider landscape setting of Market Harborough. • 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 any new development proposals.

The submitted Landscape assessment (by Pegasus Group (May 2014) and hereafter referred to as LVA) references the HDLCA in addition to national and county assessments. The LVA appears properly carried out (i.e. in accordance with Landscape Institute guidelines4) and includes 11 viewpoint assessments5, ranging from distances of 125m to 2.5km to the application site. Due to the landscape’s topography and the proposal’s form and nature, the development would have a relatively narrow ‘zone of theoretical visibility’ largely confined to the Welland Valley though including sporadic points to the south, south-east and east.

In all of the viewpoints save #11 one would have clear views of the turbine though in view 6 it would comprise a small or minor element of the view. The LVA states that visual receptors close to views 2, 3, 5 and 9 have an high-medium sensitivity to the proposal and view 8 a high sensitivity. However the LVA states that the development would not be seen above existing hedgerows in many views and would not form a feature of the skyline. It is stated that the development is likely to be visible from publicly accessible areas within the Mowsley and Laughton Hills (7.19) but not be clearly visible from lower lying areas within the adjoining landscape (7.19). The area is noted as having a ‘reasonably high level of tranquillity’ because of its rural location (7.20) but the LVA predicts the existing level of tranquillity ‘would not materially change’ with the proposed development in place (7.21) and that the ‘extent of human influence associated with this landscape will not materially change with the development of [the] solar park’ (7.16).

The applicant’s landscape consultant Pegasus finds, for example, that the magnitude of the proposal’s visual impact would be medium at views 1, 7 and 10, and low at views 2 – 5, 8 and 9, and that the nature of the effect would be major to moderate adverse at view 1, moderate at views 7 and 8, and moderate to minor at views 2, 3, 5 and 9.

Pegasus considers (at para 7.29) that the proposal would give rise to a ‘low’ magnitude of change in the wider landscape and would have a ‘minor adverse effect’ in the short term, but concludes (para 9.4) that the proposal’s visual effects would not be more than ‘moderate in scale’ (9.4) and would not cause ‘any unacceptable long-term harm to the landscape character’ (9.4). Pegasus concludes the view from the Mowsley and Laughton Hills Landscape Character Area is ‘not high enough…to merit more than a moderate overall visual effect on the visual amenity’ of the area.

Finally Pegasus concludes (9.9) that, although the landscape character of the site would be changed and a new notable landscape element introduced, the proposal would cause a ‘medium magnitude of change’ for the landscape character of the immediate area and that the overall effect on ‘the local landscape character would be minor’.

Although the landscape is a relatively very attractive one, it is noted that the site is subject of no local landscape designations6. In addition, although development of the scale and type proposed by its nature cannot be screened or hidden and would inevitably have some landscape and visual impact, just because it can be seen does not automatically mean that it

4 ‘The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Second Edition (Landscape Institute and IEMA, 2002)’ 5 Although panoramic photographs are included for all 13 viewpoints, it is noted that photomontages have been submitted in relation to only 4 of the 13 viewpoints (#2, #3, #5 and #8). It is unfortunate that the photograph from view 5 is not taken from a few paces back – the hedge in the foreground disguises the view more than from slightly further back. 6 The site was formally within a designated Area of Particularly Attractive Countryside, but this and Local Plan Policy EV/4 have not been retained and are therefore no longer applicable. 28

would have a harmful impact. Inspectors have previously stated the following with regard to wind turbines:

“...Being able to see a turbine cannot be said to always translate directly into harm” (South Kesteven, decision 17.11.087)

“...Visibility of turbines from houses, villages and cultural heritage assets is not, itself, sufficient reason to reject wind turbine development – there must also be evidence that such visibility will lead to actual harm” (South Cambs, decision 26.08.098)

Harborough District Council engaged the services of The Landscape Partnership (TLP) to critique the applicant’s LVA and review the landscape and visual aspects of the proposal, and their report (August 2014) is available on the Council’s website. At page 6 of its report, TLP states:

“…we would not agree that the proposed solar park is a ’medium scale development’. The solar park would occupy the majority of the 75 ha site which is considered in relative terms to be a large area taking two fields one of which is one of the largest fields and further additional fields within this part of the Welland Valley. We would question if this scale of development is appropriate within this part of the Welland Valley.”

TLP further states that, “the addition of the solar park would create a major new element within the landscape of a completely different form and character over an extensive area” (page 7), that the proposal would be seen “from the relatively higher ground e.g. at Theddingworth village and the surrounding Welland Valley and in particular from within the Laughton Hills” and,

“…would not agree with the conclusion at paragraph 7.19 that says that the development would leave the inter-visibility ‘materially unchanged’. In our opinion are clear views from some of the higher ground that would be significantly affected” (page 8)

With regard to tranquillity, TLP states that, while the presence of the solar farm is unlikely to have audible effects on tranquillity, “its visual presence would reference a more commercial use of the land and therefore an adverse effect be perceived with rural tranquillity of the area. This would be most noticeable in close proximity and in views from the edge of Theddingworth and from the high ground of the Laughton Hills to the north”.

Turning to the viewpoints, TLP comments on the general lack of photomontages for several of the viewpoints, e.g. requesting additional photomontages for viewpoint 7, and finds that the applicant’s LVA generally understates the magnitude of change (e.g. medium rather than low at viewpoints 2, 3, 5, 8 and 9) as well as sensitivities (e.g. high rather than medium at viewpoint 7) and the level of effect (e.g. major to moderate adverse effect at viewpoints 3 and 5 rather than moderate to minor). TLP considers the proposal would have a major adverse effect at viewpoints 8 and 9, and officers would agree. On viewpoint 8, TLP comments:

“Reference is made to the other existing agricultural structures in the landscape. However, it is the extent of the solar farm as seen from this viewpoint that would be most notable and contrary to the landscape character and harmful to the visual amenity that currently is a relatively unaffected by any adverse visual features.”

On mitigation, TLP “[accepts] that the proposed mitigation should become relatively effective between Years 5-10 from viewpoints along Mowsley Road. However, there will still be viewpoints from the more elevated land including two to the northern edge of the Conservation Area within Theddingworth and from the footpaths within the Laughton Hills.”

7 APP/E2530/A/08/2073384 8 APP/W0530/A/07/2059471 29

TLP concludes that, “the proposals are not moderate in scale… rather they represent a relatively large scale PV scheme” (3.4), that the panels would not dissolve into the backdrop (3.4), and that the proposals have “major significant adverse effects” that would be particularly notable at locations on the edge of Theddingworth village (viewpoints 2 and 3) and within the village at Station Road and on viewpoints leading up to and on the higher ground of the Laughton Hills (viewpoints 5, 7, 8 and 9) to the north.

TLP considers that the applicant’s amended landscape proposals show a “marked enhancement“ compared to those in the original application, including the removal of PV panels from the northern field on sloping ground. TLP welcomed the inclusion of additional tree planting both parallel to the Mowsley Road boundary and at the north-east corner of the site, the latter of which has now been removed in the final amended proposal. TLP stated that this planting would help / would have helped to “reduce the adverse effects from year 5 onwards from the closest public viewpoints on Mowsley Road” (3.7).

It is considered that, while its impact can be mitigated to some extent through landscaping, the proposal would appear locally as an alien, intrusive and incongruously strident feature and, as noted by TLP, the proposal fails to accord with Core Strategy Policy CS17, which requires development to be sensitive to its landscape setting and to protect the quality of the landscape in which it would be situated. The Welland Valley is an intimate landscape, reflected by the relatively narrow area of visibility, and its rural areas have a low capacity for development (HDLCA, 2007), and it is recognised that the “relatively flat and open landscape is vulnerable to adverse visual and landscape impacts of development” and that inappropriate development may adversely effect landscape character.

In simple, objective terms, it would be reasonable to conclude that an intervention that has a “major adverse” effect (drawing on TLP’s conclusions) cannot be protective of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside so affected. Officers recognise that the Framework anticipates the sensitive exploitation of renewable energy sources but, bearing in mind the likely effects, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the site’s landscape and that of a significant area around it. In particular, it would have a significant impact on the landscape when viewed from the edge of Theddingworth (cf. views 2 and 3) and from footpaths to the north and north-west (views 5, 7 and 8 are representative).

Overall, and having regard to TLP’s conclusions, it is considered that the proposal’s sheer scale / land take lends it an industrial character in the context of this relatively intimate landscape, and that the solar park would become the dominant element in this western part of the Welland Valley Landscape Character Area. Overall, therefore, the proposal does not accord with Policies CS9, CS11 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

In coming to this conclusion, the findings of Inspectors in recent appeal decisions are helpful:

37. The development would result in the loss of arable land for 25 years, albeit this would be reversible. Nonetheless, for the lifetime of the development the regimented rows of hard surfaced solar panels would represent intrusive, utilitarian elements on an industrial scale in the open countryside. Together with its associated new buildings and structures, the proposal would have a considerable urbanising impact in this rural location, and would detract from the distinctive topography of the site and its surroundings. (Wherstead, decision 02.06.149, related to a proposal for 38.4ha, output of 10MW.)

191. Without mitigation planting, the scheme would be so large in area as to redefine this part of the plateau and part of the eastern valley slope as a solar farm landscape rather than agricultural; and the magnitude of change would be high, and not just on the site itself… The proposed infill tree and hedge planting would not conceal the panels in all of these views, even when it reached maturity. Complete concealment might not be necessary

9 APP/D3505/A/13/2204846 30

to make the development acceptable, but the effectiveness of screening is an important consideration when assessing the magnitude of effect. In landscape terms, the remaining visible extent of the development would be so expansive seen from the north, especially in the winter months, as to comprise a high magnitude of change to landscape character and for visual receptors” (Hacheston, Secretary of State decision 22.05.1410, related to a proposal for 51.3ha, output of 25MW.)

Cumulative Impact: There are no other large scale solar parks in the surrounding area. A planning application for a solar PV array has been submitted in relation to Binleys Bridge Farm near Smeeton Westerby, which is situated at approx. 5km from the application site. There is likely to be no intervisibility between the two sites, and it is therefore considered that the potential cumulative impacts would be negligible. There are a number of operational wind energy development in the District, the closest to the application being that at Gilmorton (Low Spinney, consisting of 4x turbines, 125m to blade tip) with one turbine allowed at appeal at Knaptoft (1x turbine, 79m to blade tip) at approx 2 – 2.5km from the application site. The proposed solar park may be visible from land close to the latter turbine, but overall it is considered that the cumulative effects would not be significant or detrimental to an extent that may be substantiated at appeal, and therefore that the proposal would accord with Core Strategy Policy CS9 and Framework para 97 in this regard.

Appropriateness of location Inspectors’ comments in recent decisions11 are helpful in this regard:

22. Turning to Government policy, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) at paragraph 17 recognises within its core planning principles the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and paragraph 109 seeks to protect and enhance valued landscapes.

23. In the House of Commons oral statement of 29 January 2014 the Planning Minister, Nick Boles, stated the “The policies in the national planning policy framework are clear that there is no excuse for putting solar farms in the wrong places. The framework is clear that applications for renewable energy development, such as solar farms, should be approved only if the impact, including the impact on the landscape – the visual and the cumulative impact – is or can be made acceptable. That is a very high test.”

24. Also of relevance is the recent Planning Policy Guidance (PPG), paragraph ID 5-007 of which indicates that local topography is an important factor in assessing whether large scale solar farms could have a damaging effect on the landscape, and which recognises that impact can be as great in predominately flat landscapes as in hilly or mountainous areas. At paragraph ID 5-013 the PPG goes on to say that “The deployment of large-scale solar farms can have a negative impact on the rural environment, particularly in undulating landscapes.” There is no dispute that this solar array, with an installed generating capacity of 10 Mega Watts (MW) is large scale.

25. Additionally, the PPG at paragraph ID 5-010 says that “Renewable energy developments should be acceptable for their proposed location”, and indicates at paragraph ID 5-008 that distance away from a development is just one consideration, stating that "Distance plays a part, but so does the local context including factors such as topography, the local environment and near-by land uses.”

26. Furthermore, the UK Solar PV Strategy Part 1 of October 2013 sets out four guiding principles for solar PV, the third of which states, amongst other things, that solar PV should be appropriately sited with proper weight being given to environmental considerations such as landscape and visual impact. Following publication of this strategy, the Minister for

10 APP/J3530/A/13/2193911 11 APP/D3505/A/13/2204846 31

Energy and Climate Change, Greg Barker, produced a letter dated 1 November 2013 indicating that “…inappropriately sited solar PV is something that I take extremely seriously and am determined to crack down on.”

This government guidance lends further weight to the conclusions reached above in regard to the proposal’s substantial landscape and visual effects.

Visual Intrusiveness and Impact to residential amenity There have been comments from objectors on this subject, mainly on the resultant impact to living conditions. It is a well held planning principle that there is no “right to a view” such that an attractive or cherished outlook from a private property can be protected from development that would adversely affect it. The fact that the proposed solar farm would be seen from a number of dwellings in the surrounding area - and in some cases may be moderately prominent and would have some effect on countryside views - is not determinative in itself. A change in the view is simply that and how it is perceived depends in part on how the viewer is disposed to the development in question12.

However, private and public interests may coincide where a proposal would have such a severe adverse impact on the outlook from a property that it would make it a significantly less attractive place to live, as perceived by a reasonable observer without strong views for or against the type of development in question. In such a situation, protecting the amenities of a dwelling may be a legitimate and material planning consideration.

The Inspector’s comments in relation to wind turbine proposals at North Kilworth and Langdon, Dover, are helpful in this regard:

15. The planning system exists to regulate the use and development of land in the public interest and there is public interest in avoiding the effects of climate change. The outlook from private property is a private interest not a public one and there is not ‘right to a view’. However, where the visual impact of a proposal is such as to cause unreasonable living conditions/amenity for the occupants of individual homes, and might be widely regarded as making the property an unattractive place in which to live, that is a legitimate matter of public interest. (North Kilworth13)

66. However, when turbines are present in such number, size and proximity that they represent an unpleasantly overwhelming and unavoidable presence in main views from a house or garden, there is every likelihood that the property concerned would come to be widely regarded as an unattractive and thus unsatisfactory (but not necessarily uninhabitable) place in which to live. It is not in the public interest to create such living conditions where they did not exist before” (Langdon, Dover, decision 28.04.0914)

Thus the size and scale of the proposal and its relationship to nearby amenities must be considered in order to assess, for example, any overbearing or oppressive effect.

The proposal is likely to be visible from residential properties in Theddingworth (including High View) and Husbands Bosworth (including Honeypot Lane15) and from isolated dwellings in the vicinity, including Dene Lodge, Woodside Farm, Pebble Hall, Lodge Farm Cottage, Theddingworth Lodge, Mowsley Hills Farm and Ivy Lodge Farm. Pegasus considers these private views to be variously glimpsed, filtered and/or obscured by vegetation and TLP generally agrees, though notes that some of the residential locations “mentioned as part of the baseline” were not actually assessed, e.g. from the edge of Husbands Bosworth.

12 APP/E2530/A/08/2073384 13 APP/F2415/A/12/2174873 14 APP/X2220/A/08/2071880 15 Noting the applicant’s LVA at 8.11: It is possible that there are distant, filtered views of sections of the site from the upper windows within properties along the eastern edge of the village of Husband’s Bosworth 32

However, while this partial lack of assessment is regrettable, and the proposed solar park would undoubtedly have an impact on the outlook from the above mentioned properties, it is considered that this impact is not so grave as to lead to unacceptable harm to residential living conditions.

The objections of certain residential occupiers in the vicinity are noted, but on the balance of private interests (in maintaining existing views) and public interest (in generating energy from renewable resources) it is considered that the minor impact to visual outlook from residential properties is balanced by the minor public interest. The potential impact of noise and shadow flicker will be considered later in this report.

Historic Environment: Cultural heritage features include built features, historic landscape features and archaeological remains, whether earthwork monuments, industrial remains, or buried remains of human activity. An assessment was made of the potential effects upon cultural heritage as a result of the proposed wind turbines.

The applicant’s landscape consultant Pegasus notes the Scheduled Monument (the medieval settlement remains in Theddingworth) (7.4.3), the Theddingworth and Husbands Bosworth Conservation Areas and the various listed buildings (7.4.4), including the Grade I listed Church of All Saints, the Grand Union Canal Conservation Area which contains three Grade II listed bridges, and the Grade II listed Theddingworth Lodge (7.4.5) as well as the former London & North Western Railway built in 1850, the old course of which runs through the application site. Pegasus considers the latter to be of limited historical value.

A desk based heritage assessment has also been submitted (Cotswold Archaeology, May 2014), which notes the record of ridge and furrow earthworks across the whole site on historic aerial photographs and also a building within the north-western area of the site, but also notes that no remains of either were identified during its walkover survey or on LiDAR data, and considers that both will be of limited heritage significance.

The hedgerow defining the site’s western boundary is considered to be ‘historically important’ under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 and to have some historical value. Finally, the assessment concludes that the proposal “would not result in ‘substantial harm or total loss’ to the significance of any of the identified designated heritage assets”.

It is considered that the proposed development would not have a direct physical effect on recognised historic features of importance, such as Listed Buildings, Registered Parks and Gardens, Ancient Monuments and Conservation Areas.

The closest listed building is at a distance of 370m (the Thatched Cottage, Grade II listed), with the Grade I listed Church of All Saints Theddingworth at approx. 480m (to the south-east) and the Grade II listed Theddingworth Lodge at 660m to the north-west. There are 4no Grade II listed bridges on the Grand Union Canal (No. 48 at c.590m, No. 51 at c.980m, No. 52 at c.1.2km and No. 53 at c.1.45km). The Grand Union Canal Conservation Area comes within 150m of the site to its west, and there are designated Conservation Areas at Theddingworth, Mowsley, Laughton and Husbands Bosworth. The Theddingworth medieval settlement remains (Scheduled Monument) are at approx. 300m.

The LPA has a statutory duty, under Sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings. The obligations in Section 72 of the same Act apply not only to development within a Conservation Area but also to proposals which are outside a Conservation Area but which would affect its setting. The conservation of heritage assets is one of the 12 core land- use planning principles underpinning decision-taking in England.

33

Paragraph 132 of the Framework requires 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” and confirms that, “significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting”. The LCC Principal Conservation Officer notes:

“It is clear from the legislation and national planning policy directives… that the setting of heritage assets is often an important factor in their special interest or significance and that it can include the environment in which a place or building is experienced.”

Having regard to its scale and siting, it is considered that the proposal would have a significant to less than substantial impact on the setting of the Grade II listed Theddingworth Lodge, the Grade II listed bridges 48 and 51, the Grade I listed Church of All Saints, and the setting of the Grand Union Canal Conservation Area and both the Theddingworth and Husbands Bosworth Conservation Areas. It is not considered that the Thatched Cottage would be so affected. The Conservation Officer notes:

“Development which has an adverse impact on the setting of designated heritage assets must be scrutinised very carefully, and, according to [paragraphs 132-134 of] the NPPF, resisted where harm to the historic environment is not outweighed by wider public benefits… Harm or loss [to heritage assets] should require clear and convincing justification.”

The Conservation Officer also notes that the proposal, particularly when seen from public roads and footpaths to the north of the site, would,

“intrude into the landscape setting of several Conservation Areas, particularly Theddingworth and the Grand Union Canal but also Husbands Bosworth. The existing aspect across open and continually changing agricultural land will be replaced by regimented rows of harsh industrial looking solar panels and the associated equipment. They will bring an unwelcome urbanising influence and deprive the rural settlements and a section of canal of part of the established rural landscape that contributes to their significance.”

He adds that the “rear of the panels, as they rise up the sloping land to the north are likely to be as intrusive as the reflective panels facing the sun”. Officers would agree with the Conservation Officer comment that, “a strong visual and functional connection exists between the villages in the area and the surrounding farmland” and the English Heritage advice (‘The Setting of Heritage Assets’) is noted, that the physical surrounds of a heritage asset, including topography, are one of the attributes to take into account when assessing the contribution of setting to significance.

The Conservation Officer welcomes the applicant’s noting of the various heritage assets and agrees with its conclusion that the level of harm to significance of the designated heritage assets in the area is less than substantial, but disagrees with the opinion expressed (page 5 of heritage assessment) that, “as the proposed development will not result in substantial harm or total loss to the significance of any of the identified designated heritage assets the development will not be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework”.

It does not follow that, if the harm is less than substantial, little weight should be given to the conservation of these assets, and the Framework makes clear that (i) great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets and (ii) if it is concluded that the benefits of the scheme do not outweigh the less than substantial harm to the several assets the application should be resisted. In this regard, the relevant part of the nPPG is noted:

“As the significance of a heritage asset derives not only from its physical presence, but also from its setting, careful consideration should be given to the impact of large scale solar 34

farms on such assets. Depending on their scale, design and prominence, a large scale solar farm within the setting of a heritage asset may cause substantial harm to the significance of the asset…”

And, as noted by the Conservation Officer, recent appeal decisions suggest that the Secretary of State currently attaches considerable weight to the protection of designated heritage assets even where the impact of a development on the setting of such assets is predicted to cause less than substantial harm to their significance.

It is not clear that the nPPG’s advice has been followed in respect of identifying constraints and opportunities or exploring more sensitive designs or different orientations. It is considered that the proposed additional landscaping would not screen the development from the key viewpoints to any extent required to mitigate the proposal’s identified effects on the setting of heritage assets.

It is considered that the proposed solar farm, by virtue of its scale and location, and for reasons set out above, would cause significant and demonstrable harm to the setting of the Theddingworth and Husbands Bosworth Conservation Areas, as well as the Grade I listed Church of All Saints. It is considered that the proposal’s detrimental impact on the historic environment, and thus failure to accord with Core Strategy Policy CS11 and the relevant paragraphs of the Framework, weighs strongly against the proposal.

Although noting the Conservation Officer’s comments, it is considered that the harm caused to the setting of the Grand Union Canal Conservation Area is not so critical as that identified in respect of the aforesaid heritage assets. This is principally because of its linear nature, its industrial past, and that clear and/or wider views of the proposed solar farm are not readily attainable from the canal towpath. In addition, intervisibility with the Pinslade moated grange would be minimal and overall it is considered that any impact on its setting is not so significant as to warrant refusal of the application on this basis.

Archaeology The desk based assessment (Cotswold Archaeology, May 2014) considers there likely to be some potential within the northern and south-western areas of the site for the survival of previous unrecorded evidence of prehistoric archaeology, including the potential for Prehistoric and Roman archaeological remains to be present within the site. In addition, the Leicestershire and Rutland Historic Environment Record (HER) shows that the application site lies within an area of archaeological interest. Further, the archaeological bank mentioned in paragraph 4.23 (HER ref: MLE2513) appears to lie within the application site, in an area that is marked on Location Plan 13.53.HED2 as ‘Temporary Access for Construction Traffic’.

However, the nature and significance of this bank, which is thought to underlie and therefore pre-date the medieval Ridge and Furrow earthworks, has not been given consideration and no details have been provided of the proposed ground impacts in this area.

Paragraphs 128, 129 and 135 of the Framework require the significance of archaeological remains to be fully assessed, and in this instance it is considered that field evaluation, in the form of non-intrusive survey (fieldwalking or geophysical survey) and trial trenching, is required. Having regard to the advice of LCC Archaeology, it is considered that – owing to the sheer scale of the site / proposal and also the numerous ancillary buildings proposed – the proposals include operations that may destroy any buried archaeological remains that are present.

The archaeological implications cannot be adequately assessed on the basis of the currently available information, and it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not cause demonstrable harm to archaeological remains and thereby preserve the heritage asset. The proposal therefore fails to accord with Core Strategy Policy CS11 and paras 128, 129 and 135 of the Framework in this regard.

35

Ecology and Ornithology: The site is situated in an agricultural landscape and is dominated by arable and improved grazing pastures. Other habitats, including hedgerows, hedgerow trees, water bodies, field drains, and arable field margins are also present within the vicinity of the site.

The ecological report submitted with the application (Avian Ecology, May 2014) records that “no protected or notable species were observed during survey” (1.1.4) and that “With appropriate layout and design measures in place, it is considered that adverse effects on protected/ notable species and habitats can be avoided” (1.1.6).

LCC Ecology therefore has no objections to the proposal – subject to the development being implemented in accordance with the recommendations of the aforesaid report, although recommends that a badger survey be completed, which may be secured by condition(s). It is therefore considered that the proposal would accord with Core Strategy Policy CSA8 in this regard.

Hydrology and Flood Risk: The site of the proposed turbines is within Flood Zone 1 and on relatively high land, and therefore unlikely to be susceptible to any flooding. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment (PFA Consulting, June 2014) identifies that there will be a minimal increase in impermeable area as a result of the development and that cut off swales will be provided to intercept any overland flows, and on that basis the Environment Agency has no objections to the proposals. The proposal thus complies with CS Policy CS10 and paragraphs 100 and 103 of the Framework.

Highway safety: The applicant states that, during the construction period, there would be approx. 440 HGV deliveries for all equipment and materials, and these trips would be spread over a 16 week construction phase. It is estimated that development would generate a peak of no more than 14 HGV movements (7 deliveries) per day. It is stated that the development would not generate a significant amount of traffic during the operational stage (maximum of 20 visits a year).

The applicant has agreed to a traffic management plan, to include construction hours restrictions and a maximum number of deliveries per day to the site. Piling would be required (forming the initia, three-week phase of development), where “micro-piles for the supporting frames are laid out and driven into the ground using a small mobile poling rig”.

The local Highway Authority (LHA) has no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions (summarised in the Consultations section of this report), to include those mentioned above as well as details of a means of access onto Bosworth Road. Subject to these conditions, it is considered that the proposal is unlikely to have any significant effect on highway safety, and would thus accord with Policy CS5 of the adopted Core Strategy.

Impact to horses/equestrianism: There is considered to be no significant or adverse impact in this regard. Inspector’s comments at appeal16 are helpful in this regard, as well as the Rights of Way Officer’s comments earlier in this report.

Decommissioning: It seems reasonable to assume that decommissioning noise would be generally less or similar to that experienced during the construction period, would also be limited by restricting working hours and transport routes, and could be controlled via condition.

Reversibility is capable of being a material consideration, but it is considered that the proposal’s reversibility does not outweigh the proposal’s adverse effects on local landscape and heritage assets.

16 APP/W0530/A/07/2059471 36

Conclusion:

Local (CS Policy CS9) and national (NPPF paragraphs 93 to 98) planning policies establish a welcoming stance to renewables projects in general where environmental, economic and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily. The broad thrusts of national planning guidance acting in combination with adopted Core Strategy and policy related development and open countryside provides the policy basis for the determination of applications for solar park proposals.

The need to maintain continuity and security of energy supply nationally, regionally and locally in the face of diminishing resources of fossil fuels is indisputable. More particularly, wind energy is an integral component of the Government’s desired energy mix for reasons of diversity and security of supply, and sustainability. Whether the claimed output and carbon savings from this scheme are achieved, compliance with Government aims is not in question. The proposal’s contribution to renewable energy generation is considerable and substantially weighs in favour of the proposal.

However, substantial harm has been identified in respect of the proposal’s impacts on visual amenity, landscape character and the setting of heritage assets, and insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate a lack of demonstrable harm to archaeological remains. The proposal would therefore fail to comply with Policies CS9, CS11 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy, and the proposal would cause significant and demonstrable harm to heritage assets, specifically the Theddingworth and Husbands Bosworth Conservation Areas, the Grade I listed Church of All Saints and the Grade II listed Theddingworth Lodge.

Overall, it is considered that, both individually and collectively, these adverse effects identified would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the proposal’s considerable benefits, and therefore the planning balance weighs in favour of recommending that the application should be refused.

37

14/01238/REM Erection of 20 dwellings and and associated Applicant: Francis Jackson Homes garages on land at Goodmans Farm, Ashby Road, Gilmorton

Target Date: 04/12/14

Recommendation

APPROVE for the following reasons and appended conditions.

The proposal would make a contribution to the delivery of housing, including affordable housing for Harborough District, without having an adverse impact on interests such as highway safety, residential amenity, cultural heritage or flooding. The proposal satisfies the aims and objectives of the Framework, and the grant of permission will not undermine the likely achievement of policy objectives including the Council’s adopted Core Strategy CS2, CS5, CS11 and CS17. The principle of residential development on this site has been established and the application is ion compliance with the outline consent. This decision implements 186 & 187 of the Framework.

Reason for report to Committee: The proposal is for more than 10 dwellings.

Site: The application site is located is located on the northern edge of the village on the site of Goodmans farm buildings which comprise various agricultural buildings (some of which have been recently demolished), and the existing 20th century traditional farmhouse ”Gilmorton Grange” which fronts the main road. There are currently 2 existing accesses into the site, one adjoining the farmhouse and the other on the northern side of the site. There are some large conifer trees and other native trees to the road frontage, Conifer hedge to the rear and hedge to the Southern boundary.

The site is not in a Conservation Area and part of the site (farmhouse and 2 outbuildings) is within the defined limits of development, whilst the rest is outside. The adjoining property (“Clay walls”) is listed.

Background: Outline planning consent was granted for the erection of 20 dwellings (all matters reserved) on 04/03/14. This was subject to a Section 106 agreement to include the provision of 40% affordable housing, community facilities, educational/off site open space contributions. Conditions were attached to the consent which remain to be complied with as part of any Reserved Matters granted. These included matters relating to layout, design, landscaping, archaeology, ecology, provision of footway, closure of one access, method statement relating to construction and retention of trees/hedges as per submitted plans.

The Proposal:

The layout shows a linear form of development of mainly 2 storey terraced/linked dwellings to the road frontage and the use of a single access as previously approved (in compliance with the indicative outline plan). The existing hedge to the southern boundary, including with Clay Walls is to be retained.

Plots 1-5 are located on the frontage and are affordable units. They have a traditional cottage style design, incorporating steeply pitched roofs and chimneys and are a maximum height of 7.9m and are set back from the entrance and road to enable adequate visibility. Parking spaces are provided to the rear (2 spaces per property).

38

Plots 15,16 and 17 are also to the site frontage and these also comprise traditionally designed properties, incorporating steeply pitched roofs and chimneys. The linkage is provided by one and a half and single storey elements, which serve to reduce the bulk. The maximum ridge heights are 8.3m.

Plots 18-20, also on the northern frontage, comprise a terrace of shared ownership dwellings, again of traditional design and up to a maximum ridge of 8.2m. Parking spaces are provided to the rear (2 spaces per dwelling)

Within the rest of the site there is a range of two-storey, detached, traditionally designed properties with heights of maximum 8.2m. Detached garages are also proposed (3 spaces per dwelling).

A footpath is incorporated to the front of the site as required by conditions attached to the outline consent.

Policy

National: The Framework was published in 27th March 2012 and replaced many of the planning policy guidance/statements. Para 14 explains what the presumption in favour of development means in terms of decision making and para 17 sets out the core planning principles.

Housing Land Supply Position As at 31st March 2014 the Council had 4.64 years of housing supply (including a 20% buffer), and thus the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is currently unable to demonstrate an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites for housing. .

Framework paragraph 14 includes: At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development…For decision-taking this 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 permission unless: –– any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or –– specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted

In light of recent appeal decisions and the subsequent publication of the 5YS figure the Framework should be applied and resisting the proposal on the principle of it being beyond defined limits to development is almost certainly not sustainable at any appeal

Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010: The necessity test for planning obligations is a statutory requirement. Obligations must be necessary in planning terms to make development acceptable, directly related to the development, fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind of proposal (the associated section 106 agreement forms part of the outline consent).

The Development Plan: Section 38(6) of the Town & Country Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that all determinations under the Act are made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Harborough District Core Strategy: The Harborough District Local Plan was adopted in March 2001 and provided development polices for the District up to 2006. In September 2007, the Government (in line with the Planning

39

& Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) allowed some of the policies in the Local Plan to be ‘saved’ whilst work on the Local Development Framework Core Strategy continued, in order to avoid policy vacuum.

On 14th November 2011 the Harborough District Core Strategy was formally adopted, thereby replacing the majority of the Local Plan. Certain Local Plan Policies were, however, retained as part of the Core Strategy adoption. The following HDLP Policies have been retained as part of the Core Strategy and are relevant: - Policy HS/8 Limits to development.

Policy CS1 sets out the spatial strategy for Harborough, which is 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”. Policy 1 sets out a series of criteria that the Council considers necessary in order to achieve the objectives of the spatial strategy to 2028.

Policy CS2 deals with delivering new housing and advises that the District’s total housing requirement of 7,700 dwellings will be provided in sustainable locations, such as Gilmorton is defined as a rural centre. Within rural centres and villages at least 2,420 dwellings are proposed. The up to date figure for additional houses that remain to be planned for in rural centres is 429 (March 2012). (update)

The Policy states that the mix of housing types provided as part of any new development should be informed by the most up to date Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) or other local evidence. The Policy also states that “Limits to Development boundaries around settlements will be used to shape their future development” and that “Limits to Development will be reviewed through the Allocations DPD in order to enable the scale of new housing envisaged to be accommodated.” The Policy clarifies that “Housing development will not be permitted outside Limits to Development (either before or following their review) unless at any point there is less than a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites and the proposal is in keeping with the scale and character of the settlement concerned.” Para.5.9 in explanation text states rural centres will be the focus for housing development.

Policy CS3 deals with delivering housing choice and affordability and sets out a requirement that all residential developments within the District will be required to contribute towards meeting affordable housing needs. A minimum of 40% of the total number of dwellings will be affordable within the ‘Harborough Rural South west (unless lack of viability can be demonstrated). Affordable housing is to be provided onsite in most cases except in “exceptional circumstances” (para b)

Policy CS5 advises that the majority of future development will be located in areas well served by local services to reduce the need to travel, where people can gain convenient access to public transport services for longer journeys and where local journeys may be undertaken on foot or by bicycle.

Policy CS8 seeks to protect and enhance Green Infrastructure (GI) through securing a high quality, accessible and multi-functional GI network across both rural and urban areas of the District, which contributes to healthy lifestyles and a rich, diverse natural environment.

Policy CS10 considers measures to address flood risk.

Policy CS11 promotes good design standards in all development and protection and enhancement of built heritage.

Policy CS12 deals with delivering development and supporting infrastructure and seeks to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to mitigate the impacts of development and ensure that the necessary infrastructure to accompany development is provided.

40

Policy CS17 deals with development in the countryside and rural village and centres. Gilmorton is defined as a selected rural village based on the fact that it has at least two of the identified services (food shop, GP surgery, Library, post office, primary school, pub) where housing will be on a lesser scale (than in selected rural centres) reflecting the size, character and service provision of the village.

Preparation of new Local Plan for Harborough District including APPENDIX B Review of Core Strategy: NPPF Compatibility (3rd December report to Council 2012)

Supplementary Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Guidance supplements the policies of the Local Plan. They were adopted by the Council in March 2003 following public consultation. (Following Core Strategy adoption and pending Development Control SPD preparation and adoption, SPGs have been ‘saved’/retained by Council as a material consideration, and it therefore remains appropriate to consider the advice in SPGs, where applicable.)

SPG Note 1 – Design Principles to be applied in Harborough District SPG Note 2: Residential Development – Major Housing Sites SPG Note 9: Landscape & New Development SPG Note 10: Trees & Development SPG Note 11: Hedges & Development SPG Note 13: Crime Prevention & Reduction SPG Note 16: Requirements for the provision of land for outdoor play space in new residential developments SPG Note 20: Monitoring of Housing Land

Planning Obligations Developer Guidance Note (September 2009) This document sets out the Council policy for securing Section 106 contributions.

Local Development Framework – Evidence Base Landscape Character Assessment Harborough District Landscape Character Assessment was carried out by the Atkins (Sept 2007). Gilmorton is not identified.

Leicester & Leicestershire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) The SHMA identified a need for 264 affordable dwellings in the District per annum up to 2016 (or 75% of the total annual housing requirement). The SHMA however, also recognised that a 75% affordable housing target is unrealistic due to viability issues. The Council’s target is to achieve at least 90 affordable dwellings per annum.

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) was published in September 2010 and updated in 2011. The report is intended to identify sites with potential for housing development, assess their potential and assess whether they are likely to be developed. This helps the Council to develop a more accurate picture of the potential housing land supply situation in the District.

Consultations / Representations: (Representations received are available to view on-line in full)

Highway Authority:

First comments: If pedestrian accesses were permitted from plots 15 to 20 directly to Ashby Road this would lead to on street parking on a bend with restricted forward visibility on Ashby Road by residents, visitors and delivery vehicles to the detriment of highway safety. The outline layout only sought

41

two pedestrian access and they were for further from the bend. This REM proposal seeks 5No pedestrian accesses which is a major safety concern.

Revised comments (following submission of revised plan which deletes the pedestrian accesses referred to above):

Recommends conditions.

Leicestershire County Council (Ecology): Mitigation strategy acceptable. The applicant must work with their ecologist to ensure that all necessary licences from Natural England are obtained and all conditions associated with these are followed.

Leicestershire County Council (Archaeology): Original comments: It is recommended that the current application is approved subject to conditions for an appropriate programme of archaeological mitigation, including as necessary intrusive and non- intrusive investigation and recording (condition attached to outline)

Environmental Health (HDC): Original comments: No objection subject to risk based land contamination assessment (condition attached to outline)

Severn Trent and HDC Drainage Original comments No objection subject to condition relating to surface water and foul sewerage (condition attached to outline).

Affordable housing Officer: All requirements in line with outline (8 on site dwellings provided)

Parish: Concerns have been highlighted over the width of the pavement and the possible narrowing of the road. The parish council feel that although there needs to be a pavement it does not want to attract parking to the pavement, an area which is very near to the school and has many issues already with traffic and parking, the road is already narrow and only narrowing it further would surely be extremely hazardous as well as making it even more difficult for resident’s opposite to pull out of their driveways safely. Visibility for cars coming off the new planned development must also be looked at especially as the road you are pulling out on to is a very fast road, despite the 30mph signs. The lowering of the speed limit to 20mph through the village is something that the parish council would definitely like to see implemented and suggest the signs be moved out of the village along the Ashby Road with the possibility of speed activated signs or traffic calming. We would also request that the levels of flooding be assessed and that houses must be built on the same level as existing ones opposite and by lowering the ground level of the houses it will also prevent existing properties from being dominated by new development. All the above are actions which we hope Leicestershire County Council Highways will look at in depth, we would request that the Parish Council are contacted when Section 278 is applied for to enable the parish council to see that our concerns and requests have been addressed.

Representations (see on line for full copies) Objections; Representations from 2 households 1. Highway safety concerns. Has 20mph/traffic calming or other safety measures been considered? Access on dangerous bend. 2. Concerns about access from property opposite (Ulverscroft Close) 42

3. School full. 4. Building in open countryside.

Other Information

Public Rights of Way: None affected

History: 51/00097/LRDC Erection of farm house Various other applications relate to the erection of farm buildings. 13/00627/OUT Erection of 20 Dwellings and associated access, hardstanding and garages (all matters reserved).

Planning Considerations:

Policy Assessment: This application has to be assessed in the light of the relevant national, regional and local plan policies. It should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless there are material considerations that would indicate otherwise.

As the principle of the development has already been established by virtue of the outline consent, the key considerations relate to the detailed design and layout, impact on residential amenity, highways and other material considerations such as ecology and archaeology.

As previously established, the site is considered to be well related and close to existing services within the village, access to services is within a reasonable walking distance, good range of facilities within Ullesthorpe and beyond via sustainable modes of transport. Gilmorton has 3 of the relevant selected services identified in para 6.62 of the Core Strategy (food shop/Post Office, Primary school, and pubs (3)) and the presence of 2 or more is the basis for the village selection as a selected rural village. The application site is well related and visually linked with the current edge of the settlement, and is developed in its nature and more akin to a brownfield site due to this. The application site is well related to existing properties.

Impact upon the Countryside The site is already quite intensively developed with a mixture of typical agricultural buildings and hard standing and is not considered to have a high intrinsic value in terms of its attractiveness or particular landscape characteristics. It is considered that the proposed scheme represents an attractive, relatively low density development which, with the use of sympathetic materials and detailing will enhance the site and the gateway into the village from the north.

The layout plan shows existing hedges retained to the southern and eastern boundaries (to the village) and several key trees to the front will also be retained (large conifers). Additionally, 0.6m high box hedging is shown to the site frontage and an area depicted as “meadow” to the prominent southern corner (to the entrance of the site).

Layout and scale: The site is considered to relate relatively well to the built form of the settlement. The approximate density is slightly less than the 30 dwellings per hectare normally sought, which is appropriate for the location and in accordance with Policy CS2.

The affordable housing is provided on site (40%).in compliance with Policy CS3 b which requires on site provision unless there are exceptional circumstances. The 8 dwellings are located in two blocks to the south and north of the site and are considered well integrated.

43

Policy CS11requires that all development should respect the context in which it is taking place and respond to the characteristics of the individual site and ensure that it is integrated as far as possible into the existing built form of the District.

In this case, the development is considered of a suitable high quality design and layout to fit in with the surrounding mixed pattern of development which includes a wide variety of house types and patterns, with a more linear from along Ashby Road. The layout reflects this pattern with its strong from to the front and the traditional design elements, such as chimneys and porches, use of traditional materials, and sympathetic scale ensure the street scape is respected. The setback from the back of the pavement averages 5m and this further reduces impact, further enhances through proposed landscaping.

Impact on the setting of adjoining listed building and street scene: The development is situated an adequate distance from Clay Walls, a Grade 2 listed building which has its main elevation facing towards the village. Further there is already the existing farmhouse in a similar position to plots 1 and 2 and larger, less sympathetic agricultural buildings presenting a more dominant setting to the listed building. The relative scale of plots 1 and 2 is also considered sympathetic and not detrimental to the setting.

Residential amenity: The size and scale of the properties (7.9m-8.3m) and the set back from the road ensures that the properties would not be overbearing to properties directly opposite on Ashby Road (distance at least 26m+ with road between). This is in excess of the 21m as set out on the Council’s design guidance. To the South of the site, there are 3 properties, Clay Walls, The Roost and Tally, with Clay Walls being the closest. However this property faces to the North with a blank elevation facing the site. The distance between this property and Plot 1 is 6.2m which is considered an acceptable side-to side relationship. Further to the rear minimum distances are also achieved and with the retention/enhancement of boundary treatment, impact will be minimised.

Highways and parking considerations: The application site is located in close proximity to the village centre, within 5 minute walking time of the site there is a number of facilities such as food store, Post office, Village Hall, Primary school and Public House. The site is therefore in a sustainable location, which is one of the key reasons it is a village for growth in the Core Strategy. In order to provide better pedestrian links there is a requirement to provide a pedestrian footway linking to the village and this is shown on the plans. Part of the new footpath link to the south will be located within the public highway – this element will be subject to achieving the necessary S278 agreement with the LHA (this is outside of the re-mit of the planning application).The Highways Officer considers “that there should be no kerb realignment and all that need to happen is for the existing grass verge to be hard surfaced. The footway is narrow at this point but pedestrians could cross if necessary to the other side of the road where there is an existing footway.

An amended plan has been submitted which clarifies that the location of the kerb line to the west of Clay Walls remains exactly as existing at present. The surfacing will clearly be changed from grass to tarmac and these will of course need to form part of the S278 works.

To clarify, the carriageway width at this point will not be altered over the existing situation at all.

The new footpath linkage from the bell mouth of the site to this footway to the south will taper in to this area as shown on the plan. As noted, all of these works will of course need to form part of the S278 agreement in due course.

In any event, the scheme must be compliant with the outline and the Highways Officer is satisfied that this can be achieved.

44

The Highways Officer considers that traffic generation from the site would not have a significant adverse impact on the local highway network and that the access is not inadequate. Following comments from the Highways Officer regarding individual pedestrian accesses onto the Ashby Road, the plan has been revised to show a shared access.

The Parish and local objector raise the issue of reducing the speed limit to 20mph and the Highways Officer has made the following comments in respect of this matter: “There are no recorded accidents within the vicinity nor any highway scheme for speed reduction identified. If the Parish Council perceives entry speeds to the village as being an issue then they should write to Mr Phil Crossland Director of Environment and Transport here at county hall to address this a matter aside. The developer could not be held accountable to address and existing concern or issue whether perceived or real. The developer can only be required to carry out works to mitigate the impact of their development proposal. The additional traffic associated with the proposal will not lead to a severe or unacceptable increase or impact on surrounding roads hence such mitigation could not be justified in this instance.”

It is thus concluded, that adequate access, parking and other requirements are met in accordance with the outline and associated conditions. The application is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy CS5 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

Trees: The majority of trees on the site are without significant amenity value. However the proposed layout shows the retention of key trees and hedges and is in accordance with the outline consent.

Ecology: Conditions can mitigate impact on protected species (in accordance with the outline).

Archaeology: This is dealt with through conditions (in accordance with outline).

Drainage/Flooding: This is dealt with through conditions (in accordance with outline).

Conclusion: The detailed design, scale and layout is considered to represent an appropriate form of development which respects the surrounding pattern of development and would enhance the entrance of the village. It would serve to bring forward additional housing, including affordable in a key settlement and help support the viability of local services. Appropriate pedestrian linkage is shown to the rest of the village and the scheme is considered in accordance with the outline consent.

Conditions / Reason:

1. No development shall commence on site until a schedule indicating the materials to be used on all external elevations of the approved development 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.

2. Before first use of the development hereby permitted, drainage shall be provided within the site such that surface water does 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 highway users in compliance with Core Strategy CS11.

45

3. Before first occupation of any dwelling, car parking shall be provided, hard surfaced and made available for use to serve that dwelling on the basis of 2 spaces for a dwelling with up to three bedrooms and 3 spaces for a dwelling with four or more bedrooms. The parking spaces so provided shall thereafter be permanently so maintained. 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 in the area in compliance with Core Strategy CS11.

4. Before first occupation of any dwelling, its access drive and any turning space shall be surfaced with tarmacadam, concrete or similar hard bound material (not loose aggregate) for a distance of at least 5 metres behind the highway boundary and shall be so maintained at all times. Reason: To reduce the possibility of deleterious material being deposited in the highway (loose stones etc.) in compliance with Core Strategy CS11.

5. Before first use of the development hereby permitted, 1.0 metre by 1.0 metre pedestrian visibility splays shall be provided on the highway boundary on both sides of each vehicular access with nothing within those splays higher than 0.6 metres above the level of the adjacent footway/verge/highway, in accordance with the current standards of the Highway Authority and shall be so maintained in perpetuity. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian safety in compliance with Core Strategy CS11.

6. Any shared private drives serving no more than a total of 5 dwellings shall be a minimum of 4.25 metres wide for at least the first 5 metres behind the highway boundary and have a drop crossing of a minimum size as shown in Figure DG20 of the 6CsDG at its junction with the adopted road carriageway. The access drive shall be provided before any dwelling hereby permitted is first occupied and shall thereafter be permanently so maintained. NOTE: If the access is bounded immediately on one side by a wall, fence or other structure, an additional 0.5 metre strip will be required on that side. If it is so bounded on both sides, additional 0.5 metre strips will be required on both sides. Reason: To ensure that vehicles entering and leaving the site may pass each other clear of the highway and not cause problems or dangers within the highway in compliance with CS11.

7. Any shared private drive serving more than 5 but no more than 25 dwellings shall be a minimum of 4.8 metres wide for at least the first 5 metres behind the highway boundary and have a drop crossing of a minimum size as shown in Figure DG20 of the 6CsDG at its junction with the adopted road carriageway. The access drive shall be provided before any dwelling hereby permitted is first occupied and shall thereafter be permanently so maintained. NOTE: If the access is bounded immediately on one side by a wall, fence or other structure, an additional 0.5 metre strip will be required on that side. If it is so bounded on both sides, additional 0.5 metre strips will be required on both sides.

Reason: To ensure that vehicles entering and leaving the site may pass each other clear of the highway and not cause problems or dangers within the highway in compliance with Core strategy CS11.

8. All soft landscaping comprised in the approved details of landscaping 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, 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 46

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

Notes to Applicant

1.- 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).

2.C.B.R. Tests shall be taken and submitted to the County Council's Area Manager prior to development commencing in order to ascertain road construction requirements. No work shall commence on site without prior notice being given to the Highways Manager.

3.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.

4.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.

47

14/01298/VAC – Knaptoft Variation of Condition 12 of 13/00182/FUL to seek Chase Milton Energy additional wording to Condition 12 (relating to Target Date: 17.11.2014 noise affecting residential properties), at Land OS 4400, Welford Road, Knaptoft, Leicestershire

Recommendation:

APPROVE for the following reasons:

The development hereby approved would provide energy from a renewable source contributing towards general objectives to achieve this as outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework. The proposal would not adversely affect ecological or archaeological interests, residential amenity, or give rise to additional traffic which would lead to a road safety hazard. Furthermore, notwithstanding (1) the size and scale of the proposal and its significant impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape and (2) the Local Planning Authority’s refusal of the original planning application (13/00182/FUL), it is not considered that – within the context of benefits towards addressing climate change, and specifically noting that the subsequent appeal of that refusal was allowed – this harm justifies a refusal of planning permission. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies CS5, CS8, CS9, CS10, CS11 and CS17 of the Harborough District Local Plan. It is not considered that there are any material considerations which would outweigh the policies of the development plan or indicate that the proposal would result in demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.

Note: The decision has been reached taking into account paragraphs 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Site / Context:

The site is located in the countryside and is agricultural grazing land adjacent to the A5199. Warren Farm is the closest dwelling to the proposed turbine, at a distance of approximately 440 metres. The Cottage Farm is the closest third party dwelling at approx. 610 metres from the proposed turbine. The next closest dwellings are:

- Mowsley Chase Farm 630 metres away (approx.) - Mowsley lodge 720 metres away (approx.) - Knaptoft Lodge farm 740 metres away (approx.)

The nearest village is Mowsley, approximately 1.3km to the North East. The small settlement of Knaptoft is approximately 1.7km to the North West. A mast is located on a high point approximately 400 metres from the site of the proposed turbine. The site is well away from any other built form and is outside any village boundary or defined Limits to Development. The closest listed structure is a grade II listed mile post adjacent to the A5199 approximately 600 metres from the site of the proposed turbine.

There are a number of grade II listed buildings in Mowsley and a Grade II* listed church. The site is approximately 750 metres from the nearest scheduled Ancient Monument on the opposite side of the A5199.

The Proposal:

The current application seeks permission for the Variation of Condition 12, which relates to noise limits at the boundary of the nearest residential property. The Condition is proposed to be varied to the following, with the additional words added in bold:

48

“Noise from the wind turbine shall not exceed 35dB LA90 10 mins up to wind speeds of 10m/s at 10m height at the boundary of the nearest residential property lawfully in existence (or for which planning permission has been granted) on the date of this permission.”

The Condition as imposed by the Planning Inspector is as follows:

12) Noise from the wind turbine shall not exceed 35dB LA90 10 mins up to wind speeds of 10m/s at 10m height at the boundary of the nearest residential property.

Under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 the proposed development is not EIA development, i.e. it does not meet the thresholds therein (relating to number of turbines, generating capacity and the proposal’s relative strategic importance), and so an Environmental Statement has not been required or submitted.

Policy:

National Planning Policy Framework (published 27.03.2012):

Paragraphs 9, 13, 14, 17 (presumption + core planning principles), 18 – 20 (economy), 29 – 36 (transport), 56 – 66 (design), 69, 70, 75 (healthy communities), 93 – 99 and 100-104 (climate change and flooding), 109 – 125 (natural environment), 126 – 139 (historic environment), 186 – 206 (decision taking)

Local Policy:

Harborough District Core Strategy: CS5 – Providing Sustainable Transport CS8 – Protecting and Enhancing Green Infrastructure CS9 – Addressing Climate Change CS10 – Addressing Flood Risk CS11 – Promoting Design and Built Heritage CS17 – Countryside, Rural Centres and Rural Villages

Harborough District Local Plan: RM/8 – Sites of local ecological or geological interest

Local Guidance: Wind Turbines – A Developer Guidance Note (HDC) – July 2009

Other UK Renewable Energy Strategy (DECC, 2009) Wind Energy and the Historic Environment (English Heritage, 2005) Climate Change Programme (DCLG, 2006) Meeting the Energy Challenge – a White Paper (HMSO, 2008) Harborough District Landscape Character Assessment (2007) Planning for a Sustainable Future: White Paper (DCLG, 2007) The Planning for Climate Change Report (IT, 2008) Planning for Climate Change (supplementary national guidance) (April 2012) The national Planning Practice Guidance Suite (06.03.14) Appendix A to Circular 11/95 – Use of conditions in planning permission Circular 06/05 – Biodiversity including statutory obligations within the planning system Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010

Preparation of new Local Plan for Harborough District including APPENDIX B Review of Core Strategy: NPPF Compatibility (3rd December report to Council 2012)

Consultations: 49

National Bodies:

Ministry of Defence (MoD): Natural England: Environment Agency: No comments received to date from any of the above

English Heritage: No comments to make

NERL Safeguarding: Civil Aviation Authority: Coventry Airport: No comments received

National Air Traffic Service (NATS): No objections; does not conflict with our safeguarding criteria – based on the details submitted

Leicestershire County Council:

LCC Ecology: We have no comments on this application.

LCC Conservation Officer: LCC Highway Authority (LHA): LCC Archaeology: LCC Public Rights of Way: No comments received to date from any of the above

Harborough District Council:

HDC Environmental Services: No comments received

Neighbouring Planning Authorities:

None

Parish Councils:

Mowsley: Mowsley Parish Meeting objects to the application to vary the Planning Permission relating to the Wind Turbine at Warren Farm. Knaptoft for the following reasons.

(1) Following the approval by the Planning Inspectorate of Application to erect a 79 metre Wind Turbine the Parish Meeting wrote to Sir Edward Garnier urging intervention by the Secretary of State. The response received was very clear in that the decision as published was final and could not be varied.

(2) At all junctures throughout the process the Parish was denied the opportunity to debate the application in public. At no time has the Applicant every discussed the application with, or sought, the publics view. The Applicant failed to attend the Planning Committee Meeting at which this Application was discussed (and rejected) preferring instead to rely on the decision of the Planning Inspectorate to make the final approval. It is not fully understood as to why the Planning Inspector saw fit not to engage the public in an open discussion at this juncture and as such the application was judged on written arguments only. 50

(3) The reasons for this current variation are totally unclear. What is clear however is that the Applicant has seen fit to swamp the Planning Department with copies of over 200 pages of other applications to four separates sites. This has to give rise to a thought that the Applicant is attempting to hide something that is not transparent in the Application.

(4) In support of its application the Applicant states, at Point 12 that, “it is worth noting that the proposed amendment is uncontentious as a matter of planning merit. It could not be said to affect the acceptability of the development and, in the circumstances, it is difficult to see how any reasonable objection could be made to it”. If this is the case and it is uncontentious why bother applying for the variation in the first place.

(5) The Applicant freely admits that they made a mistake and in part tries to apportion blame to the Planning Inspector. They also make the assumption that the Planning Inspector would have accepted the proposed wording had he have seen it. The Applicant has no such grounds for making that assumption. As the Planning Inspector made his decision based on written submissions it has to be accepted that that decision was made on what he saw not on what he did not see. If the Applicant made a mistake then that is not something that should be blamed on anyone else.

(6) If this variation is accepted will it not then set a precedent for the Applicant to come back again and make further applications to vary other conditions?

The Council has a duty to represent its Electorate. The various Parish Meetings and a large number of constituent residents rejected this application, HDC Planning Department rejected it, the Planning Committee of HDC rejected it, yet it was allowed to proceed on the decision of a single Planning Inspector. No public access was allowed to either the Applicant/Developer or the Inspector and we therefore urge that this current application, reflecting the will of those people most affected i.e. the local population, be rejected.

Shearsby: Supports, but most unclear about what is being varied. Please ask applicants to highlight ‘before and after’. Professional agents should know better and be refused unless sufficient explanation ‘why’.

Knaptoft: Husbands Bosworth: Laughton: Saddington: No comments received

Elected Members:

Cllr Neville Hall None to date

Local Bodies and Other Consultees:

Leicestershire Constabulary: The Ramblers (Leicestershire & Rutland Area): Leicestershire and Rutland Bridleways Association & the British Horse Society: Done East Midlands Air Support Unit: No comments received from the above

Representations:

Notification sent to 116 residents. Five letters of objection received; issues raised include: 51

(1) Notification procedure: Objector lives in Knaptoft parish, 0.8 miles from the site of the proposed turbine, with direct and uninterrupted views of the proposed turbine; there are no intermediate properties. However, was not notified of the original planning application or the subsequent appeal, and found out about the proposal, by chance, after the Inspector’s decision had been made, and outside the timescales allowed for any legal challenge. Objectors received no notification from Knaptoft Parish Council/Meeting or its Chairman. Very concerned that Knaptoft residents were not adequately informed. HDC’s neighbour notification/consultation policy has been inappropriate for an application of this nature, and deficient in protecting the rights of local residents. It has left objectors with no opportunity to raise our objections to the original application and to have had them considered by the Inspector on appeal. (2) Objector considers that had the planning process enabled it to raise its objections properly, so that the Inspector could have considered them, then he would likely have compared objector’s situation with that of the Sparrow Lodge turbine application which was rejected (Dec 2012) on the grounds of its impact on two neighbouring properties. (3) Application documentation is misleading and confusing – not clear what the practical impact and effect would be of the variation of Condition 12. Does this application for variation really matter? What happens if it is refused or if it is passed? Does it have any implication regarding the construction of the turbine? (4) Objector would like to repeat their previously stated reasons for objection within the public comments section of the original application (13/00182/FUL). (5) On a point of principle, the parishioners of Mowsley have collectively paid almost £1,000 to hire a planning consultant to stop this development. Parishioners and members of the Planning Committee have given a significant amount of their time to stop this development. The Officers and members of the Planning Committee at HDC have supported all of these positions and recommended it for refusal. (6) The site owners appealed and the Planning Inspector allowed the appeal, against all of this opposition. This Wind Turbine, when erected, is going to be the most prominent land mark for some 6 or 7 miles around the area and will seriously detract from what is the natural beauty of Laughton and Mowsley Hills, John and Jane Ball-Wood in the parish of Knaptoft and the surrounding areas of Walton and South Kilworth. (7) Planning Committee is encouraged to refuse this proposed Variation, and give as a reason for doing so that in it cannot reasonably be asked to approve a variation on something it refused in the first place, if as a Planning Department and Committee they are to have any credibility at all.

Other Information:

Public Rights of Way: Footpath Y42 and Bridleway Y46 lead from the A5199 to the North East and South East respectively. At the closes point (opposite the access to Warren Farm and the site) they are approximately 200 metres from the proposed turbine. Bridleway Y43 begins approximately 400 metres to the South East of the site at the access to Mowsley Chase Farm. Bridleway Y47 runs roughly North South and is approximately 600 metres from the proposed turbine at the closest point.

History: 13/00182/FUL - Erection of a 79m wind turbine and associated works – refused (Planning Committee), 20.05.2013, allowed at appeal

Supporting Information (from the applicant): (1) In cases involving wind turbines it is typically the Secretary of State’s policy to qualify the application of the noise limit so that it does not apply to illegal residential properties, or to those which are developed after the grant of planning permission.

(2) This much is clear from recent decision letters including, by way of example, the four attached to this application. See in particular, the following references: 52

a. Alaska decision (APP/B1225/A/11/2161905) – condition 32 b. Batsworthy (APP/X1118/A/11/2162070) – condition 38 c. Chiplow (APP/V2635/A/11/2154590) – condition 27 (page 50 of the decision) and Jackslane (APP/V2635/A/11/2158966) – condition 25 (page 64) d. Lilbourne (APP/Y2810/A/11/2164759) – condition 25

(3) Such a policy evidently makes sense. It would be absurd if the operation of any lawful, implemented development could be frustrated unexpectedly by other illegal acts, or by subsequent development outside the control of the operator. It is not the approach of the planning system to subject consented projects to such damaging and fundamental uncertainty. Such an approach would be unreasonable and there is no reason to take a different view here.

(4) The condition in its current terms is clearly contrary to Government policy as expressed in the Framework paragraph 206 which requires conditions to be reasonable. This condition is plainly unreasonable for the reasons given above.

(5) It is also, arguably, contrary to the terms of paragraph 204 which require conditions to be necessary to make the development in question acceptable. The condition as currently worded goes beyond what is necessary (i) because it protects illegal dwellings, and (ii) because insofar as lawful future dwellings are concerned, the proper approach is for the council to avoid the harm in question by regulating future development in the usual manner.

(6) This raises the question why in this case the Inspector adopted a different approach. It appears that what happened was as follows. a. During the course of the appeal the Council proposed draft conditions. These included a draft Condition 12. b. The Appellant made various representations on those proposals, and these are reflected in the final set of conditions. c. Regrettably the Appellant omitted to make representations on draft Condition 12. d. Presumably, therefore, the Inspector assumed that draft Condition 12 was agreed in the terms proposed and accordingly adopted it directly.

(7) Nonetheless it must be assumed that the Inspector would have adopted the Secretary of State’s standard wording had he put his mind to it.

Addendum to the above Supporting Statement (from the applicant): (1) This Addendum has been produced following objections to the above application. Several of those objections complain about a lack of clarity in the application, concerning both the Applicant’s reasons for making the application, and the effect of the application if allowed. Accordingly the purpose of this Addendum is to provide further clarity. Specifically, its purpose is to reassure local people that the Applicant’s intention is not to avoid noise limits, but to clarify the application of the noise condition (Condition 12) to prevent unfairness and unintended consequences.

(2) It is normal and appropriate for wind turbine planning permissions to include conditions to prevent local people from being disturbed by noise. It is also normal for such noise conditions to be worded so as to prohibit noise levels above a certain threshold, measured in certain wind conditions, at the boundary of residential properties that lawfully exist at the date of permission.

(3) In the Warren Farm permission the noise condition is number 12 but it is worded unusually. There is no reference to properties that lawfully exist at the date of permission. As a result it is not entirely clear what it means. It could, for example, be argued that, strictly interpreted, the noise threshold also applies to illegal properties. So if, for example, someone were to establish an illegal home (e.g. in a barn or caravan) near to the turbine and then to live there undetected for long enough to achieve immunity from enforcement action, they might seek to argue that the turbine should be stopped for noise reasons.

53

(4) This would obviously be unfair, wrong and an unintended consequence of the condition. The planning system judges proposed developments on their merits at the time of application and, if it finds them acceptable, grants permission permanently or, as in this case, for a fixed period. It does not leave them vulnerable to possible future illegal acts of others. This explains why the Secretary of State usually applies the standard wording referred to above.

(5) The reasons for the application (i) There is no evidence of any illegal dwelling in this case. Equally, it seems unlikely that one will be established. But similar situations have arisen unexpectedly in different cases and it has become the Applicant’s policy to protect itself, because the potential consequences of failing to do so are so damaging.

(ii) It is worth pointing out that the Applicant fully appreciated the nature of this risk only after the opportunity to point out the problems with the Council’s proposed wording had passed.

Planning Considerations Section 38(6) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning applications be determined in accordance with the relevant polices contained within the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. At the present time the Development Plan for the site comprises the adopted Harborough District Core Strategy, and the retained polices of the Harborough District Local Plan (HDLP). National guidance in the form of the National Planning Policy Framework, together with Government White Papers and Reviews, is also relevant.

Although now replaced by the national Planning Practice Guidance section “Flexible options for planning permissions”, paragraph 71 of ‘Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions’ (DCLG, Oct 2010) is noted:

“The development which the application under s.73 seeks to amend will by definition have been judged to be acceptable in principle at an earlier date. These applications should be determined in accordance with s.38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, but local planning authorities should, in making their decisions, focus their attention on national or local policies or other material considerations which may have changed significantly since the original grant of permission, as well as the changes sought.”

Impact of the proposed change: The proposed variation would retain the condition’s current wording but add the following words:

“…lawfully in existence (or for which planning permission has been granted) on the date of this permission.”

The effect of the proposed variation is that, rather than apply to all properties, lawful or unlawful, the condition would have to be adhered to in respect only of lawful residential properties.

The proposed variation would not change the objective of the condition, namely to require for the wind turbine in question to accord with appropriate noise limits, or the noise limit itself. The intention of the proposed variation is to clarify the condition’s terms of reference.

The applicant contends the condition as imposed by the Inspector is unreasonable. Officers would tend to disagree, since the imposed condition is clear and enforceable, and it is unlikely that the Council would consider it expedient to take enforcement action on a lawful development (i.e. the approved turbine) for failure to accord with noise limits in respect of an unlawful development. It seems even more unlikely that the owners or occupiers of an unlawful development would draw attention to themselves by complaining about such an alleged breach of noise limits. In addition, the varied condition would become increasingly superfluous over time as it becomes less and less likely for then-unlawful dwellings to ‘become’ lawful.

54

Notwithstanding, the proposed variation is considered reasonable and helps bring clarity to the intention and objectives of the condition. Officers note the examples cited by the applicant, in particular the following condition in the Lilbourne appeal decision of 6th July 2012 (ref. 11/2164759, consent granted for 5x 125m turbines). Although evidently tailored to suit the specific circumstances of the Lilbourne case, it has a similar wording to what is currently proposed by the applicant, notably the text is shown in bold:

25. The rating level of noise emissions from the combined effects of the wind turbine generators (including the application of any tonal penalty) when measured and calculated in accordance with "The assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, ETSU-R-97" published by ETSU for the (former) Department of Trade and Industry and in accordance with the attached guidance notes, shall not exceed the values set out in Tables 1 and 2 below. Where there is more than one dwelling (defined for the purposes of this condition as a building within Use Class C3 and C4 of the Use Classes Order) at a location, the noise limits apply to all dwellings lawfully in existence at the time of granting this permission, at that location. Noise limits for properties which lawfully exist or have planning permission for construction at the date of this consent but are not listed in the tables attached, shall be those of the most representative location listed in Tables 1 and 2 suggested by the developer and submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.

For the avoidance of doubt, it should be stated that it would be unreasonable for any condition to preclude future development, which would have to be assessed on its own merits at the time of any such application. However, the wording highlighted above relates to dwellings in existence at the time of the grant of planning permission.

It could therefore be considered necessary to make clear that the varied condition relates to dwellings lawfully in existence at the time of the original planning permission (i.e. the appeal decision) if this was considered necessary.

It is also worth noting that while Section 73 applications (for Variation of Condition) result in a new planning permission, they must retain the commencement time limit condition from the original permission. Therefore, the requirement to commence development within three years would also refer back to the date of the original planning permission.

Finally, it is worth confirming that (1) approval of the current application would not remove the requirement to comply with the general or overall noise limits that the condition currently sets out, and (2) the proposed variation is the only matter that can be assessed, other than any changes in planning policy or guidance since the date of the original permission. The appeal was allowed on 14th April 2014 and there have no changes to planning policy or guidance since that time that would materially affect the approved development subject of this application.

No other changes are proposed to the approved development.

Conclusion:

The current application does not provide a means of refusing the development as a whole. Although the Local Planning Authority refused the original planning application, and the concerns of local parishes and residents are noted, to refuse this planning application on any other ground than in relation to the proposed variation would be wholly unreasonable.

The proposed variation is reasonable and helps bring clarity and certainty to the intention and objectives of the condition. It would not remove the requirement to comply with the general or overall noise limits that the condition currently sets out, but would assist the Council and other parties in monitoring and enforcement.

For these reasons, the current application is recommended for approval.

55

Conditions

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of the original planning permission, that is, 14th April 2014.

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Figures 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 subject to Condition 3 below, 2.4 and 2.5 to the submitted Environmental Report (OneWind Renewables, February 2013).

3) Notwithstanding the dimensions shown on the approved indicative figure 2.3 referred to in Condition 2 above, the wind turbine hereby permitted shall conform to all of the following parameters: • Height from existing ground level to axis of turbine hub not to exceed 55 metres; • Height from existing ground level to tip of blade at top of swept path not to exceed 79 metres; and • Rotor diameter not to exceed 60 metres.

4) The turbine, switchgear house and site track shall be provided in the positions indicated on the hereby approved plans subject to a micro-siting allowance of 20m and subject to the turbine being no less than 60m from any hedgerow and no closer to the A5199 road than indicated on the approved plans. Any variation in the indicated positions from those shown on the approved plans, within the micro-siting allowance, shall only be permitted following prior written approval by the Local Planning Authority.

5) The development approved by this permission shall not commence until full details of the turbine including its colour, finish, air safety lighting and the warranted sound power level and full details of any control cabinet or similar ancillary infrastructure (including appearance, materials and siting) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

6) Prior to commencement of development, details of the permanent vehicular access to the site and any accommodation works at that access shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

7) Prior to the commencement of any works a Construction Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include details and, where applicable, timetables relating to: (i) Any separate temporary access to be created for the purposes of construction; (ii) The control of noise and vibration emissions from construction activities including groundwork and the formation of infrastructure, along with arrangements to monitor noise emissions from the development site during the construction phase; (iii) The control of dust including arrangements to monitor dust emissions from the development site during the construction phase; (iv) Measures for controlling pollution/sedimentation and responding to any spillages/incidents during the construction phase; (v) Measures to control mud deposition offsite from vehicles leaving the site; (vi) The location and size of temporary parking, lay down and compound areas; (vii) The control of surface water drainage from parking and hard-standing areas including the design and construction of oil interceptors (including during the operational phase); (viii) The use of impervious bases and impervious bund walls for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals on-site; (ix) Replanting plans for turbine bases and crane operation areas subsequent to construction; (x) Details of the reinstatement of any areas of the site, including hedges, which may have been disturbed during construction;

56

(xi) The means by which users of public rights of way would be protected during the construction period; and (xii) Which of the above elements are to be retained throughout the life of the development. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

8) No lighting, symbols, signs or logos or other lettering other than those required for health and safety, traffic management and aviation safety shall be displayed on any part of the turbine or any other building or structures on the site.

9) Written confirmation of the date of the first export of electricity to the grid (the 'First Export Date') from the wind turbine hereby permitted shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority within one month of the date of this taking place. The permission hereby granted shall enure for a period of 25 years from the First Export Date.

10) Prior to the First Export Date, a scheme setting out a protocol for the assessment of shadow flicker in the event of any complaint being received, including the remedial measures to be taken, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Operation of the wind turbines shall take place in accordance with the approved protocol.

11) Prior to the First Export Date, a scheme to secure the investigation and alleviation of any electro-magnetic interference to TV and radio reception caused by the operation of the turbine has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. In the event of turbine- related interference being identified, the approved scheme shall be implemented within 12 months of the First Export Date.

12) Noise from the wind turbine shall not exceed 35dBLA90 10 mins up to wind speeds of 10m/s at 10m height at the boundary of the nearest residential property lawfully in existence (or for which planning permission has been granted) on the date of the original planning permission, that is 14th April 2014.

13) Within 28 days from the receipt of a written request from the Local Planning Authority following a noise complaint to it, the turbine operator shall, at its own expense, employ an independent consultant approved by the local planning authority to assess the level of noise emissions from the wind farm at the complainant’s property. The results of the assessment as to whether a breach of the noise limits in Condition 12 above has been established shall be reported to the local planning authority.

14) Upon notification in writing from the Local Planning Authority of an established breach of the noise limits pursuant to Condition 13 above, the turbine operator shall within 28 days submit in writing to the local planning authority a scheme to mitigate the breach to prevent its future occurrence, including a timetable for its implementation. Following the written approval of the scheme by the Local Planning Authority it shall be activated forthwith.

15) Not less than one year prior to the expiry of this planning permission a Decommissioning Method Statement shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. This shall include details of all site decommissioning works, including how the wind turbine and ancillary equipment would be dismantled and removed from the site, the depth to which wind turbine foundations shall be removed below ground level, along with details of site restoration and a timetable of works. The Decommissioning Method Statement shall be carried out as approved.

16) A minimum of 2 months prior to the decommissioning of the turbine the results of a survey of protected species on and using the site, and a scheme of mitigation measures including a timetable for their implementation shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Decommissioning of the turbine shall not commence until such time that the scheme has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 57

14/01299/FUL – Lutterworth Change of use from Use Class B8 to a mixed Bandvulc Group use as Class B8 (tyre storage) and use for tyre fitting (sui generis use) at Bensons for Target Date: 18th November 2014 Beds, Bilton Way, Lutterworth

Recommendation

APPROVE subject to the appended conditions and for the following reason:

The development hereby approved, by virtue of it being an appropriate use class (mixed B8 and sui generis) would not adversely affect amenities of adjoining residents, nor result in additional traffic which would give rise to a road safety hazard. Furthermore, the development will generate employment opportunities in the District. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policies CS7, CS11 &CS14 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.

Site:

The site is a brick-built building within an industrial estate towards the north of Lutterworth. Two storey offices face west onto Bilton Way: the rest of the building is a warehouse, with a full-height canopy to the east elevation. Vehicular access is onto Bilton Way at two points on the east boundary. The building has concrete hardstanding to the immediate north, west and east. The east, north and south boundaries are marked by 2m high chainlink fence with concrete posts: the west boundary has galvanised steel palisade fencing of 2m in height. Beyond this fencing is a hedge with trees and then the verge and highway of the A426. On the occasion of the officer’s site visit (13th November 2014), the building was being used for tyre storage (company named Tyre Maintenance) and according to staff at the premises, had been so for two weeks. Other industrial buildings lie to the north, south and east. The site is within the Limits to Development of Lutterworth but not designated a Key Employment Site under the saved Local Plan. Designation for Key Employment Sites within the new Local Plan for Harborough has not yet been made.

The Proposal:

The application proposes the change of use of the building from its current use as a warehouse (storage/distribution, use class B8) to a mixed use of warehouse (B8) with tyre fitting (sui generis). (“Sui generis” means “of it’s own kind”. In planning terms, it means the use is its own use class, and Planning Permission is required for any change of use). Of a total ground floor internal floorspace of 3344m2, most will be used for tyre storage (2872m2) with the rest of the ground floor used for the tyre fitting workshop (472m2). The application is correctly for mixed use, as some of the storage/distribution (B8) will be for tyres not used in the proposed tyre fitting business. Other areas within the building will be offices, ancillary to the business. The hours of use are 07:00 – 20:00 Monday to Friday, Saturday 08:00 – 16:00, Sunday 08:00 – 13:00, with opening hours for customers (ie tyre fitting) less than this. The application is for change of use only: no physical changes are proposed which would otherwise require Planning Permission.

Reason for reporting to Planning Committee: The application is reported to the Planning Committee because five or more letters of objection have been received.

Policy:

National Policy National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) (the Framework) 58

Harborough District Core Strategy CS7 – Enabling Employment and Business Development CS14 – Lutterworth CS11 – Promoting Design & Built Heritage

Local Plan for Harborough District (including APPENDIX B Review of Core Strategy: NPPF Compatibility [3rd December Council 2012])

Consultations / Representations:

Environmental Health: Potential for noise nuisance from tyre fitting although nearest neighbours are other side of Leicester Road; would like to limit operating hours, depends on what current hours are and what are appropriate for the area; as it is an existing building, would be “heavy handed” to request a lighting scheme; Lutterworth has an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) but this “would not necessarily mean that commercial enterprises like this should not be permitted. I therefore do not feel it would be appropriate to refuse the application on the ground of air quality” (6th November 2014)

“Further to the additional information provided by the applicant, generally I am satisfied that the surrounding amenity will not be adversely affected by the granting of the development. The applicant has confirmed that the larger tyres (and I assume will require specialist and nosier machinery) will be undertaken away from the premises. Any tyre refitting is furthest away from any residential accommodation which is estimated to be 80m away by the applicant. In terms of the operating hours, I am unsure of operating hours in the vicinity but see no justification to amend the hours requested.” (12th November 2013)

Lutterworth Town Council: Note that proposal “is in an industrial area but has reservations about the paucity of information given on the application form and expects that the legitimate concerns of residents will be taken into account.” Will “exacerbate the existing parking problems in that area” (15th October 2014).

Representations: 14 letters of objection received, all with the same text, summarised as: 1) noise; 2) traffic and parking; 3) fire safety/air pollution from fire smoke; 4) impact on retail (increase in traffic “will deter shoppers”; 5) insufficient information (For full details of representation, please see file).

History: None relevant to this proposal.

Planning Considerations:

Policy Assessment: As the proposal is for the change of use of a warehouse within Lutterworth Town, policies CS7 and CS14 are most relevant, together with CS11. CS14 relates specifically to Lutterworth, and supports employment development within this Key Centre. Any additional employment development which requires HGV access “should be located near the M1, A426 and A4303”. The policy supports other uses on land which is presently used by HGV-generating development, supports mixed employment use where it helps to reduce HGV flow through the town centre, and resists development which “would result in additional HGVs passing through Lutterworth Town centre”. CS7 seeks to enable employment and business development throughout the District, particularly in Key and Rural Centres. Amongst other requirements, CS11 states that proposals should safeguard residential amenity. The Framework has a presumption in favour of sustainable development and gives support for proposals which generate economic growth.

59

Change of Use The surrounding units have consent for B1 (business/light industry), B2 (general industrial) or B8 (storage and distribution) uses, and/or have Permitted Development rights to allow this sort of change of use without Planning Permission. Adjoining businesses include Brenntag Logistics (chemical storage and distribution), Pukka Pad (office supply distribution), and Design 4 Retail Logistics (storage/distribution). The proposed mixed use of B8 and tyre fitting is less intensive than either full storage/distribution, or full general industrial use, yet is in keeping with these uses. The Framework supports proposals for economic development in sustainable areas, and Lutterworth is such an area. The proposed mixed use is suitable for this location and is supported by policy, complying with CS7 and CS14.

Residential amenity: 14 letters of objection have been received; Lutterworth Town Council have made comments on the application but do not object. At its closest point (edge of rear canopy), the building is 34m away from the rear boundary of the closest neighbour at 34 Douglas Bader Drive. However, the land between is the public highway of the A426, the main street through Lutterworth and a busy main road. Furthermore, the houses are on a slightly lower level than the proposal and were built when the industrial estate (including this unit) were well established. Principally, the tyre fitting activity will be on the side of the building furthest away from the residential properties, to the east, with the entrance doors facing east. These doors are 115m from the rear boundary of the closest residential property. There are no hours’ restrictions on the current use or building: currently a storage/distribution use could lawfully operate with unrestricted hours from this site. The applicant has stated that the tyre fitting will take place within the building and has suggested hours of business: these will be enshrined in conditions suggested below. When the building is not open for the public, it will be used for storage/distribution, which is the current B8 lawful use, and a condition restricting this use would be unreasonable. A condition disallowing HGV tyres to be fitted at the site would be onerous and, arguably, unenforceable: contrary to Circular 11/95. Environmental Health do not object and do not require any noise, air quality or lighting assessment, given the surrounding uses, and existing use and relationship with residential properties. Fire safety (with or without any resultant air pollution) is covered under other legislation and the business should comply with this. Given all the above, and that the site is within an existing industrial estate, with an existing B8 use, it would be unreasonable to refuse the application on grounds of residential amenity. The proposal is considered to comply with CS11.

Highways No formal comments have been received from LCC Highways; informally their view is that there should not be any Highway-related concerns, and will not lead to any unacceptable increase of traffic. Given the existing lawful use for storage/distribution, it is doubtful that the mixed use will lead to an increase in HGV traffic. (Even if this did occur, there would be general policy support for this as CS14 states that “Any additional proposals for business development in Lutterworth which require access by heavy goods vehicle should be located near the M1, A426 and A4303”.) Furthermore, it could be argued that the mixed use will reduce HGV traffic through the town centre as the use would not now be solely storage/distribution: also complying with CS14. It is not proposed to fit HGV tyres at the premises: customers in vans and cars will drive into the building and/or use the existing parking areas on the hardstanding if required. A highway restriction (double-yellow lines) prevents parking on the highway: a further condition regarding parking within the curtilage would therefore seem to be superfluous. The proposal is considered to have no material impact on parking or highway safety such as to warrant refusal on these grounds, and it therefore complies with CS11 and CS14.

Conclusion:

It is considered that the proposal complies with CS7, CS11 and CS14 and is recommended for approval.

Conditions / Reasons: 60

1. The development hereby approved shall be begun within 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason:- To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the position at the end of this period.

2. The tyre fitting business hours shall be between 07:00 – 17:30 on Mondays to Fridays and between 08:00 – 13:00 on Saturdays and Sundays and not at any time on Bank or Public Holidays. REASON: To ensure the creation 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.

3. There shall be no tyre fitting carried out to the west side of the building, including under the canopy area. 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.

4. All tyre fitting shall be carried out inside the building. REASON: To ensure the creation 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.

Notes:

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. 01858 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.

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. Notwithstanding the above, the emission of any smoke from site could constitute a Statutory Nuisance under section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

61

14/01327/VAC – Newton Harcourt Variation of Condition 3 of 98/00513/FUL to create a separate dwelling and for the creation Applicant: Mrs M Spendlove-Mason of a new access (revised scheme of 13/00118/VAC) at Chestnut Cottage, Post Target Date: 20/11/14 Office Lane, Newton Harcourt

Recommendation

REFUSE for the following reasons:

The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that an appropriate and safe vehicular access would be provided to the proposed development and the proposal, if permitted would consequently result in an unacceptable form of development and could lead to dangers for road users. In addition the proposal, if permitted, would lead to additional traffic using Post Office Lane, which is unsuitable in its width and design to cater for this increase and would not be in the interests of the highway. The proposal would therefore fail to accord with Policies CS5 and CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy and paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Site:

The application site is within the Limits to Development of Newton Harcourt. The building is an outbuilding to Croft House Farm which has been converted into ancillary residential accommodation. It is presently being extended having been granted planning permission.

The Proposal:

The application is for the variation of Condition 3 of 98/00513/FUL. 98/00513/FUL granted approval for the Change of use of outbuilding to ancillary residential accommodation’. Condition 3 states ‘The development hereby permitted shall not be used, sold or let as separate living accommodation but shall remain ancillary to the existing dwelling at all times’. Application 13/00118/VAC benefits from a resolution to approve subject to a s106 (to make an affordable housing contribution). That s106 has not been completed and this revised scheme also includes a new access to serve the property. Work has commenced on this access. Whether planning permission was required for this access was considered by Counsel and they expressed a provisional view that permission would be required.

Amended plans have been submitted proposing a passing bay within the newly formed access. See Consultations section reporting Leicestershire Highways objected to the scheme and after considering a highway improvement (passing bay) restated its objection.

Policy

Harborough District Council Core Strategy Policy CS5: Transport Policy CS11: Promoting Design and Built Heritage Policy CS17: Countryside, Rural Centres and Rural Villages

Harborough District Local Plan retained policy Policy HS8: Limits to Development

National Planning Policy Framework

Consultations / Representations:

62

Leicestershire County Council Highways (FIRST COMMENTS 21st October 2014): “Whilst the existing access to Chestnut Cottage is substandard in accordance with the 6CsDG it provides acceptable forward visibility and does not fall within connecting public rights of way, therefore not causing safety concerns to the Highway Authority for the proposed intensification. Post Office lane is already unsuitable in its width and design; it is a single track road with no passing points and limited visibility specifically at the bend close to the proposed access. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that an appropriate safe vehicular access would be provided; therefore the Highway Authority would seek to resist any intensification where vehicles are forced to use the bend at Post Office Lane, in the interest of Highway Safety. Reasons for Refusal - The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that an appropriate and safe vehicular access would be provided to the proposed development and the proposal, if permitted would consequently result in an unacceptable form of development and could lead to dangers for road users.

The proposal, if permitted, would lead to additional traffic using Post Office Lane, which is unsuitable in its width and design to cater for this increase and would not be in the interests of the highway.

Furthermore the development, if permitted, could create a precedent for similar proposals which would be difficult to resist and lead to a further increase in traffic which would not be in the interests of Highway safety”.

Leicestershire County Council Highways (Further comments 21st October 2014)

“From a highway safety point of view, the intensification in use of Post Office Lane and in particular the length of the lane beyond the approved access point is not suitable in its current form to serve any additional development. However if the applicant were able to offer an improvement to the highway that could be seen as an overall benefit outweighing the safety concerns of the proposal, then the Highway Authority would be prepared to consider that.

Having considered the matter, the only gain that I could see the applicants being able to deliver, would be if, as part of their access works, they were to construct a turning head, that was dedicated as highway, that would enable all vehicles (including refuse and delivery vehicles) to be able to turn. I assume that currently vehicles have to reverse over a long section of Post Office Lane and back out on to Glen Road, which is undesirable, and the provision of a turning head that would mean that such movements are no longer necessary would be a suitable highway gain to mitigate the increased dangers created by the current proposal. In an ideal world the Highway Authority would prefer the road to be widened to allow two vehicles to pass safety however I do not think this is possible.

Any design of a turning head/ highway widening etc, would need to be submitted for approval before being provided”

Correspondence between agent and LCC Highways Agent (28th October) to LCC … I confirm one solution discussed which would meet with the Highways approvals would be :-  the formation of a passing lay bye within the proposed new access point ;  the land forming the lay bye is assigned to the Highways by way of sectional agreement for adoption ;  the works to be constructed to adoption standards ;  the inclusion of a condition for the proposed new access to serve one dwelling use only ;  the new drive to be maximum gradient of 1:12 commencing 5m back from the new access point ; I will send the outline design proposal drawing for your comments once completed. Hopefully by middle of November. This will all be subject to the inclusion of a condition that must be signed off by Highways Authority approve before the occupation of the dwelling.

63

Leicestershire County Council Highways to Agent (30th October) …Providing a scheme can be achieved that is in accordance with the 6CsDG (www.leics.gov.uk/6csdg) to an adoptable standard the Highway Authority are unlikely to have any objections to the proposal…

Leicestershire County Council Highways (Last comments received: 10th November)):

Further comments prior to the submission of the plan showing a passing space –

Following discussions with senior officers in regards to the proposed passing bay, the Highway Authority do not think it would sufficiently mitigate against the original concerns about the visibility at the bend of Post Office Lane. Any intensification at this bend is not in the interest of Highway Safety. Therefore the original response of the Highway Authority still stands. The Highway Authority is a statutory consultee within the Planning Process therefore any final decisions are made by the Local Planning Authority.

Housing Enabling & Community Infrastructure Officer: Following a decision of Executive and ratified by Council on 15 September 2014, the Commuted Sums discount scheme related to commuted sums charge on 1-2 dwelling developments, as approved on 23 April 2012 has been amended. There is NO commuted sum requirement for the noted application.

Wistow Cum Newton Harcourt Parish Council: Objects to the proposal for the following reasons, 1) CS1 states that development should be safe and well designed. The new access is not. There is increased danger of collision from vehicles entering/exiting the access turning left due to the blind bend and to the right because the wall will restrict sight lines. 2) 12/00762/FUL was refused because Post Office Lane is unsuitable in its width and design to cater for an increase in traffic. The proposal does not accord with the development plan. There should be consistency in decision making. 3) Another access will increase congestion from the householders and delivery vehicles which will use the access. 4) Eight parking spaces are too many for a small single private dwelling house. Raises local concern about the applicant’s future intentions in respect of adjacent land. 5) The letter from the Planning Officer states that “whilst ordinarily adding to a proposal goes beyond a VAC application this appears in this instance as a pragmatic and speedy way forward”. We have been advised that a VAC can not be used to change the previously approved development. The nature and extent of concern as to how the situation has arisen and been handled to date is such that a straight forward application for the objectionable extra access – which would be strongly opposed – should be made instead. 6) The applicant previously said that the extension was for her own occupation. Therefore there is no need to vary Condition 3 as all the land is in the same ownership. It would only be necessary if it is intended to sell Chestnut Cottage or create a larger development on the site. A separate access would assist the sale of either property. If either property was sold this would lead to an increase in traffic contrary to the Design and Access statement. 7) A need has not been demonstrated to remove the condition or for the separate access.

Representations:

20 letters of objection from 16 addresses raising the following concerns, 1) This application should be treated in the same manner as similar applications for accesses in this location which have been refused because of traffic issues, 2) The property already has suitable road access and there is no requirement for a secondary access, 3) The proposed access is directly adjacent to a public footpath which is used on a daily basis and is completely inappropriate from a safety point of view, 4) Post Office Lane is single track with a dead end. There is no footpath and it is popular with walkers. There are two blind bends and no passing points. When cars meet one has to reverse the entirety of the lane which is inconvenient, creates a hazard and is dangerous to walkers, especially when it involves reversing round blind bends, 5) The current proposals show spaces for potentially 8 cars, this is an increase of spaces despite the design & 64

access statement stating there will not be an increase in traffic. An increase in spaces will obviously result in an increase in traffic, 6) What is the relevance of varying condition 3 when it appears unnecessary and indicates other reasons for its variation or removal, 6) As access is such an important issue there should be a proper formal application, 7) An additional access onto Post Office Lane has been refused previously (12/00762/FUL). This is an identical situation and this should be refused on the same grounds in the interest of consistency, fairness and equality, 8) Additional traffic onto Glen Road. Extremely dangerous junction where objectors were victim of a serious accident, 9) County Council and Police have expressed concern about amount of traffic and the speed of traffic through the village, 10) Objector is disabled and frequently uses Post Office Lane. 10) Enchanted village will be changed into one of the most dangerous in the area. 11) 13/00118/VAC stated no additional access was required. Why has this been amended requesting additional access with no reasons or explanations provided? The existing access is more than adequate. 12) No justification for 8 parking spaces for 2 bedroom bungalow. This is excessive and suggests a further intention to develop and inappropriately ‘back fill’ land adjacent to the footpath. 13) The footpath is not accurately highlighted on the boundary diagram. The footpath does not cross the applicant’s land as implied by the diagram. 14) If Mrs Spendlove-Mason is to live in the annex and Mr Spendlove-Mason is to live in Croft House Farm then there is no need to vary condition 3 and create a new access. If however they intend to sell either or both properties then they need to vary condition 3 and an additional entrance would be highly desirable and would facilitate the sale. It is clear that they intend to sell one or both of the properties and Mrs Spendlove-Mason should be honest about her intentions. 15) Inevitably such a sale would lead to an increase in traffic contrary to the claims in the Design and Access Statement. The Design and Access statement also says that the access is to be formed. This should read, has been formed as it has already been made without planning permission. 16) The red outline on the Location Plan has been drawn wrong. This means a paddock will also be granted consent for the change of use and new access. 17) The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal is situated where services are readily and safely accessible by walking, cycling and public transport. The proposal conflicts with LCC Policy contained in the Local Transport Plan 3 and Policy IN6 of the 6C’s Design Guide. 18) Two applications should be made, one to remove Condition 3 and one for the access and additional parking. The access is also retrospective so should be determined separately. 19) Data from the Trip Rate Information Computer System (TRICS) database (which is adopted by LCC and the Highways Authority), will confirm that privately owned housing generates a mean of 5.3 trips per household per day. By removing Condition 3, this figure will conservatively DOUBLE to 10.6 trips per day. Such a dramatic increase, along with the proposed EIGHT additional parking spaces, would not be in the best interests of highway safety and sustainability, and the proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CS5 and CS11 of the LPA’s Core Strategy. 20) The applicant objected to the new house proposed at The Oaks with regards to the access. 21) Why apply for a variation that was approved in 1998. The two properties are owned by the same family so there is no need for a variation as the entrance is adequate with plenty of parking. 22) Why is the Officer advising the applicant how to get the application passed (correspondence 17/06/14) and why is the document unreadable. Total lack of transparency especially when one takes into account a close relatives position on the Council. 23) The access is out of all proportion to need, it is dangerous for cars entering and leaving Chestnut Cottage. 24) Concerned that this variation is a possible means to submit later plans for further development. The Council should ask for a plan showing a full correct plan of the area owned by the applicants and the area for the planning variation. 25) Very concerned that this application has resulted from incorrect planning procedure on behalf of HDC and the handling of the matter falls far below the standards we expect of the Development Control Department. 26) This application needs to meet strongest test of transparency, integrity and current planning regulation. Respectfully suggest it does not. 27) Previous no new access was required so there were no objections. However, an email from the Council allowed a new access. This was only made public 3 weeks after receipt of the revised application. Approval and communication in this way by the Council circumvented the opportunity for residents to raise any objections. Judging by the anger of villagers at the parish meeting this point is of serious concern. 28) There are horses in the field next to Post Office Lane and these will be disturbed by the additional traffic and construction vehicles. 28) Recommendation for refusal 65

from LCC Highways dated 21.10.14 seems to run contrary to refusal of application 12/00762/FUL. The provision of a turning head within the access would not address all the points raised in the LCC reason for refusal and would be contrary to the grounds for refusal. 29) The access proposal should be treated as a Full application not a variation. 30) Indicates further applications from the family at a later date for much larger development on their land. This land is inaccessible without this larger access. The plan is not being considered showing this land. A full correct plan of the area owned by the applicants and the area for the variation should be submitted. 31) The old farm yard is more than capable to take the parking for both Croft Farm and Chestnut Cottage.

5 letters of support from 5 addresses stating, 1) We live at the bottom end of Post Office Lane and are neighbours. We have no objection to their request to have a driveway access to the property from Post Office Lane. 2) Bemused by the nature of many of the negative comments. Not so long ago that we and many others used to have our vehicles serviced by Maz Vilcins at the Old School House in Post Office Lane. This was much more of an impact on the number of vehicles using Post Office Lane and no one objected to it. The alterations to the access of Chestnut Cottage would seem to be of little significance to the increase in traffic. The alteration will have no impact whatsoever on the aesthetics of the location and make no difference to the vehicles entering or exiting Post Office Lane. 3) Feel that any additional vehicular traffic would be of minimal significance. The number of parking spaces has been highlighted and is assumed to indicate future development. We believe a more realistic assumption is that as there is no on street parking that the applicant has responsibly included an adequate amount for their own use and that of visiting family, friends and trades people. 4) Can see no harm being caused by this access.

Further to amended plans showing passing bay –

1 letter of objection, 1) Originally wrote in supporting the proposal but the amendment is totally out of keeping with a rural lane and would create a suburban looking cul de sac in this peaceful and attractive environment. 2) Proposed lay by would have an enormously detrimental effect on the surrounding area.

Other Information

History: 13/01183/FUL – Demolition of existing conservatory and erection of single storey extensions – Permitted 13/00118/VAC – Variation of condition 3 of 98/00513/FUL to create a separate dwelling – Approved subject to a S106 agreement 98/00513/FUL – Change of use of outbuilding to ancillary residential accommodation – Permitted

Reason for going to Committee: The application is being considered at Planning Committee as the applicant is related to a Harborough District Council Councillor. It was previously deferred as correspondence between the agent and the Highways department suggested there could be a solution to overcome the refusal reason. An amended access plan has submitted (drawing no. 2014-06-002).

Planning Considerations:

Policy Assessment: The relevant Core Strategy policies are CS11 and CS17.

Policy CS11 stresses the importance of good design. It states that development should be inspired by, respect and enhance local character, building materials and distinctiveness of the area. Development should be of a scale, density and design that will not cause damage to the 66

qualities, character and amenity of the areas in which they are situated and ensure that the amenities of existing and future neighbouring occupiers are safeguarded. It should also reflect the streetscape in which it is situated and include an appropriate landscaping scheme where needed.

Policy CS17 sets out where development will take place in the rural areas of the District. This states that in the rural areas development will be focused on Rural Centres and Selected Rural Villages. Villages not identified, but which have identified Limits to Development, may be suitable to receive very limited small scale infill development.

Principle of development: The principle of development is acceptable as the site is within the Limits to Development of a village and is only small scale development. This accords with Policy CS17 of the Core Strategy. The conversion of the annex to a separate dwelling has already been approved subject to a S106 agreement so the only change is the proposed access.

Design and Impact upon the character of the area: At present it is used as ancillary accommodation and it is proposed for it to be a separate residential unit. It is not considered that this change would affect the character of the surrounding area. The building has been granted planning permission for some single storey extensions, which are presently being built. Because the building is a converted outbuilding of character Permitted Development rights will be removed by way of condition to ensure that any future extensions or outbuildings preserve that character.

The new access is through a 2.4m high brick wall. The majority of the wall is being retained. There are to be wooden gates and it is considered that these would be in keeping with the character of the area. There is to be a passing space next to the access and the existing highway.

The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policy CS11 of the Harborough Core Strategy.

Residential amenity: The dwelling is within the residential curtilage of Croft House Farm. It is not considered that the building being a separate dwelling will result in a loss of privacy due to the boundary treatment of Croft House Farm’s back garden and the distance between the dwellings. Both properties have a garden area. Overall it is considered that the proposal will safeguard existing and future residential amenity and be in accordance with Policy CS11 of the Harborough Core Strategy.

Highways and parking considerations: There is space for parking for both Chestnut Cottage and Croft House Farm. There is also space for turning.

12/00762/FUL Erection of a dwelling at The Oaks, Glen Road, Newton Harcourt has been referred to by objectors. This was for a new dwelling rather than a conversion of an annex to a dwelling. This was refused for two highway reasons after receiving advice from Leicestershire County Council. These reasons were,

The proposal, if permitted would lead to the creation of an access onto a road where the horizontal alignment and the proximity of adjacent boundaries are such that the access lacks appropriate visibility for the speed of traffic on the main road and the consequential turning manoeuvres could lead to increased dangers for road users. This is contrary to Policy CS11 of the Harborough Core Strategy.

The proposal, if permitted, would lead to additional traffic using Post Office Lane, which is unsuitable in its width and design to cater for this increase and would not be in the

67

interests of the highway. This is contrary to Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Council Core Strategy.

Leicestershire County Council Highways have recommended refusal for this present application because the applicant has failed to demonstrate that an appropriate and safe vehicular access would be provide, that the proposal would lead to additional traffic using Post Office Lane and it could set a precedent for further development. The application is therefore recommended for refusal for the first two reasons. Precedent is not a reason for refusal as each application is assessed on its own merits.

LCC Highways were asked if anything could be done to address their concerns and they advised,

A plan (drawing no. 2014-06-002) has been submitted showing a passing space next to the proposed access. This has been re-consulted on. Leicestershire County Council Highways maintains its objection. Whilst the intensification of traffic beyond the approved access would be from one dwelling only with mitigation of a proposed passing bay, the Highway Authority do not think it would sufficiently mitigate against the original concerns about the visibility at the bend of Post Office Lane and that any intensification at this bend is not in the interest of Highway Safety. There is no evidence to dispute or put aside these concerns.

Conclusion: It is considered that the proposed separate dwelling will not harm the character and qualities of the area. It will also not adversely affect residential amenity and an adequate provision of parking is provided for both properties. However, the access could lead to dangers for road users and Post Office Lane is not suitable with regards to its width and design for the increase in traffic.

Conditions / Reason:

Reasons for refusal:

1) The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that an appropriate and safe vehicular access would be provided to the proposed development and the proposal, if permitted would consequently result in an unacceptable form of development and could lead to dangers for road users.

2) The proposal, if permitted, would lead to additional traffic using Post Office Lane, which is unsuitable in its width and design to cater for this increase and would not be in the interests of the highway.

68

14/01338/FUL Amendments to Plot 2 dwelling, involving internal EAST LANGTON change to garage to become playroom, insertion of one additional ground floor window to front elevation Mr B Cripps - Langton Homes Ltd in place of garage door, erection of attached carport and store to side, and associated driveway works (Part-revised scheme of 13/01899/FUL);

Lavender House, Stonton Road, Church Langton, Leicestershire

Target Date: 27/11/14

Recommendation

APPROVE for the following reasons and subject to the appended conditions:

The development hereby approved, by virtue of its design (form, mass, scale, proportions, style and materials), would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area, would not harm the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area, would not harm the amenities of surrounding residents/sites, would not adversely affect ecological, archaeological or arboricultural interests, and would not be detrimental to highway safety. The proposal, therefore, complies with Policies CS1, CS2, CS5, CS8, CS11 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 proposal complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the decision has been reached taking into account Paragraphs 186 and 187 of the Framework.

Site Introduction:

The application relates to one of two new dwellings which have been built adjacent to (outside) the Limits to Development of the rural village of Church Langton. Plot 1, now called Hare House, is complete and occupied. The current application relates to Plot 2, now called Lavender House, which lies at the northeast end of the village. Lavender House is nearing completion and is not yet occupied; hence the changes which are now proposed require a ‘revised dwelling’ application rather than a householder extension/alterations application.

The application site lies outside the village’s Conservation Area, approximately 30m away from its boundary. It is considered that development on the application site may affect the setting of the Conservation Area. Accordingly, regard has been given to the statutory duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposal does not affect the setting of any Listed Buildings.

An Area TPO (21A1) runs within the site around its southeast (Stonton Road) and northeast edges. This belt of trees offers screening for the inside of the site from these directions.

The private driveway serving Glebe Farm runs along the northeastern edge of the site. To the southwest of the site lies the new Hare House dwelling, with the dwelling No.5 Stonton Road beyond this. To the front (southeast) and to the rear (northwest) of the site is open countryside.

Site History:

The site benefits from Full Planning Permission for the erection of two detached dwellings (permission 13/01899/FUL). Therefore, the principle of the residential development of the site has been accepted and is not a pertinent material planning consideration. 69

The Proposal:

The current application seeks to make some amendments/additions to the approved 13/01899/FUL scheme for Plot 2 (Lavender House) only.

The amendments are as follows:

 Internal alterations to convert final garage space into playroom space;  External removal of garage door and replacement with brickwork and a window to match adjacent front elevation ground floor window;  The erection of an attached timber frame carport and store to the side elevation of the dwelling; and  Associated driveway works to access the carport/store.

The proposal has been amended during the current application process: the carport/store was originally proposed as a detached structure to the front of the dwelling and it has been moved so it is now attached to the side elevation of the dwelling. Its design/appearance has also been altered to accommodate the re-siting.

Neighbour and Parish re-consultations have been performed.

Pre-application Advice

Pre-application advice was provided to the application on an informal basis, without prejudice to any subsequent decision which may be made by the Local Authority.

At pre-application stage, the agent/applicant was advised that Officers had concerns with the principle of a garage to the front of the dwelling and reminded that this had been a concern to Planning Committee Members with previous planning applications on this site.

The agent/applicant was given advice on how they could seek to minimise harm were they minded to submit a planning application (for example, by using high quality timber materials which blend in with the spinney, doing a single bay structure [rather than double], minimising its height and mass, doing it out of timber piers in an open car-barn fashion which can be seen through, rather than a solid elevation double garage type structure).

Relevant Policy Considerations:

National Policy / Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Section 66 & 72 imposes special duty to consider conservation areas and listed buildings/assets, including setting. Core Strategy Policy CS11 applies in this respect.

The Development Plan

Section 38(6) of the Town & Country Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that all determinations under the Act are made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Harborough District Local Plan Policy HS/8 Limits to Development 70

Supplementary Planning Guidance SPG Note 1: Design Principles to be Applied in Harborough District SPG Note 3: Single Plot Development and Development of Small Groups of Dwellings SPG Note 5: Extensions to Dwellings SPG Note 9: Landscape and New Development SPG Note 10: Trees and Development

There is no Village Design Statement (VDS) or Parish Plan, existing, planned or underway, which covers Church Langton. The Parish of East Langton (which covers the settlement of Church Langton) is undertaking a Neighbourhood Plan. This is at an early stage – no material weight can yet be attached to it until a draft Plan is consulted upon. Following the initial consultation and the Plan being formally submitted to HDC for the submission consultation, the Plan will then have material weight in any planning applications.

Core Strategy Development Plan Document “Version for Council Adoption” was adopted on 14/11/11 to guide future development in the District to 2028. Key Policies 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 CS17: Countryside, Rural Centres and Rural Villages

Preparation of new Local Plan for Harborough District including APPENDIX B Review of Core Strategy: NPPF Compatibility (3rd December report to Council 2012)

Consultations / Representations: (Representations received are available to view in full online, or by request.)

Highway Authority (LCC) No objections. Standing Advice; as for 13/01899/FUL.

LCC Ecology “We have no comments on this application.”

LCC Forestry Recall looking at this site in relation to 12/01428/FUL on 14/11/12. The comments on that are still relevant. The survey submitted is the same Andrew Belson report, so the tree references in my notes are the same. No further observations.

East Langton Parish Council OBJECTED to the ORIGINAL plans, on grounds of it breaching the building line on Stonton Road. NO COMMENTS received on the AMENDED plans.

Representations: ORIGINAL PLANS

Seven letters of objection have been received, summarised under the following points:

71

1) The garage is significantly in front of the building line for the row of houses on Stonton Road; 2) The design and access statement says that the application will result in an additional house therefore helping to meet the District's housing supply. This is untrue as the planning application for a dwelling has already been approved. 3) The design and access statement contains other concerning statements, inaccuracies and errors with regard to consultation with neighbours, pre-application advice given and the visual impacts of the proposal; 4) The garage will directly impact on the sight line from our study (No.5 Stonton Road); 5) Concerns about the impacts of trees/foliage being removed.

PO Comment – it is noted that the majority of objection comments focus on the carport being proposed in front of the Stonton Road ‘building line”, i.e. forward of the front elevation of the application dwelling. The applicant’s design and access statement contains superfluous material with regard to delivering new housing development. The 2 dwellings are already approved.

One letter of support has been received, raising the following points:

“I support the proposed plan changes as I believe the parish council objections to be floored. The proposed garage will not detract from the village scene, the line of sight or the general aesthetics of the village. There are also many cases in surrounding villages of properties with garages positioned in front of the property at 90 degrees to the front elevation. As such the "not in keeping" argument is also floored.”

“The properties that have been built are beautiful and are a credit to the village, the addition of a separate oak carport and store will not detract from this in any way.”

AMENDED PLANS

One letter of objection has been received:

“I am pleased that common sense has prevailed and the relocation of the car port has removed the potential breach of the long standing building line on Stonton Road. However the new location can only be achieved by removing at least two trees that were previously designated as needing to be retained through the development. I therefore object to the development if it involves the removal of yet more trees on the site.”

Other Information:

Planning History (all approved except 12/01428/FUL and 13/01741/NMA):

Erection of two detached dwellings with Land North Of Mr Ben associated garages, hardstanding and 12/01428/FUL Stonton Road, Church Cripps landscaping; alterations to existing Langton access

Erection of two detached dwellings with Land North Of Langton associated garages, hardstanding and 13/00786/FUL Stonton Road, Church Homes landscaping; alterations to existing Langton access (resubmission of 12/01428/FUL)

72

Amendments to Plot 1 comprising addition of rooflights (6 to rear roof Langton Land North Of Stonton 13/01381/NMA plane, 1 to front roof plane) and revised Homes Road, Church Langton internal layout (Non-Material Amendments to 13/00786/FUL)

Land North Of Stonton Langton Discharge of Condition 6 (Landscaping) 13/01532/PCD Road, Church Homes of 13/00786/FUL Langton

Land North Of Stonton Discharge of Conditions 3 (Materials) Langton 13/01668/PCD Road, Church and 12 (Scheme for Affordable Housing) Homes Langton of 13/00786/FUL

Amendments to fenestration and revised Langton Land North Of Stonton 13/01741/NMA internal layout (Proposed as Non- Homes Road, Church Langton Material Amendments to 13/00786/FUL)

Erection of two detached dwellings with Land North Of associated garaging, hardstanding and Langton 13/01899/FUL Stonton Road, landscaping, and alterations to existing Homes Church Langton access (revised scheme of 13/00786/FUL)

Amendment to Plot 1 dwelling involving Land North Of Langton additional of external staircase to south 14/00635/FUL Stonton Road, Homes side elevation (Part-revised scheme of Church Langton 13/01899/FUL)

Reason for Committee Decision This application is being reported to the Planning Committee for determination because 5+ letters of objection were received on the ORIGINAL plans.

Planning Considerations:

This application is solely to be assessed in terms of whether or not the proposed amendments are acceptable, with matters such as visual and residential amenity, arboricultural interests and highway safety being paramount. Most material considerations assessed under 13/00786/FUL and 13/01899/FUL are not considered to have changed significantly.

Affordable Housing

The Local Authority’s Affordable Housing Policy CS3, as it pertains to new dwelling proposals of 1 to 2 dwellings, was amended on 15.09.14: the requirement for an Affordable Housing Commuted Sum to be paid in lieu of on-site provision was removed. Therefore, it is not reasonable to apply a further Affordable Housing Commuted Sum requirement/Condition to this consent. The proposal complies with Policy CS3.

The applicant has already entered into a Unilateral Undertaking legal agreement under 13/00786/FUL (varied under 13/01899/FUL) and is, therefore, obliged to their commitments in this legal agreement.

73

Design and Visual Amenity – Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Site and Surrounding Area (Including Impact on the Setting of the Conservation Area)

The amended carport/store proposal (with the structure now to the side elevation of the dwelling) is judged to be well designed and in keeping with the character and appearance of the approved dwelling, the site and its surroundings. Good quality materials are proposed; an oak framework and timber infill panels and reclaimed slate roof tiles to match the dwelling. The structure is set back from the front elevation line of the dwelling and set down in height in a subordinate manner. The mono-pitch design of the store serves as a progressively subordinate element to the side of the dwelling. The timber materials of the structure will naturally weather and blend into the appearance of the adjacent tree spinney.

Compared to the approved 13/01899/FUL “Site Plan”, 2 additional trees are now proposed to be removed in order to make room for the carport/store. These 2 trees are shown on the September 2012 Andrew Belson “Tree Constraints Plan” (submitted for 12/01428/FUL) and the updated June 2013 Andrew Belson “Tree Constraints Plan” (submitted for 13/00786/FUL and 13/01899/FUL) as being low grade trees (C2 Category ‘trees of low quality and value’) and to be removed. The Andrew Belson report/plan was checked by the LCC Forestry Officer during the 12/01428/FUL application process. 1 tree shown to be planted in the 13/01899/FUL “Site Plan” layout will now not be planted. It is not considered that the effective loss of 3 trees will significantly open up views into the site or harmfully expose the dwelling. Retention of the two C2 Category trees could not be justified by the Local Authority. Notwithstanding, the applicant proposes an additional planting strip alongside the carport/store to enhance screening. The timber frame and timber cladding of the carport/store will aid to visually merge it with the belt of trees/foliage, making it more discreet from outside the site.

The conversion of the final integral garage bay into playroom space, involving the replacement of the garage door with brickwork and window, is judged to be acceptable in visual terms.

The driveway alterations include additional hard surfacing, as well as the removal of some presently approved hard surfacing. The alterations are considered to be acceptable.

13/01899/FUL Approval Current proposal

Residential/Neighbouring/General Amenities

The proposal will not have a significant impact on neighbouring properties or general amenities in the locality.

Highways Safety – Access, Parking and Turning

LCC Highway Authority (HA) does not object to the proposal. 13/00786/FUL and 13/01899/FUL Conditions and Informative Notes are again recommended. 74

The proposal does not have a detrimental impact on highway safety.

Conclusion:

The amended proposal remains limited small scale additional development on the edge of Church Langton. The proposal is in keeping with the form, character and appearance of the site and settlement and accords with Policies CS2, CS8, CS11 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy in this respect. The proposal preserves the setting of the Conservation Area. The proposal would not harm neighbouring amenities and would not harm ecological, archaeological or arboricultural interests. Furthermore, the proposal would not be detrimental to highway safety.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve

Conditions

A ‘development to commence within 3 years from the date of this permission’ Condition is not necessary. The development has commenced and it is reasonable to permit the hereby approved alterations/carport/store to be completed under the applicant’s timescales.

1. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: amended "Site Plan" (Job No. L277, Drawing No. P25, Revision F, dated 03.11.14); amended "Plot 2 - Plans and Elevations" (Job No. L277, Drawing No. P27, Revision E, dated 03.11.14); and "Tree Protection Plan" (Sheet No. 2114.TPP, Revision A, dated June 2013) submitted as part of application 13/01899/FUL.

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt.

2. The materials to be used externally in the construction of the approved buildings shall be as follows (as submitted as part of application 13/01668/PCD):

Roof: • Slates (as per sample provided 06.12.13); • Ridge tiles to match the roof slates;

Walls: • Weinerberger Oast Russett 65mm bricks for the main house (as per sample provided 06.12.13); • Green oak frame for carport/store, with timber cladding;

Windows: • Prefinished, high performance Benlowe softwood frames. Plot 2 - RAL 7032; • Rooflights – conservation style rooflights, fitted flush with roof plane, to be a black/grey frame; • Plot 2 Clipsham limestone sills with oak heads/lintels.

Doors: • Prefinished, high performance Benlowe softwood frames. Plot 2 - RAL 7032.

Rainwater Goods: • Black uPVC.

The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and, thereafter, retained as such in perpetuity.

75

REASON: In the interest of visual amenity, to ensure that the materials and design of the development are appropriate to the character and appearance of the site, its surroundings and the nearby Conservation Area, and to accord with Policies CS11 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

A levels Condition is not judged be necessary anymore.

3. For the period of the construction of the development, vehicle parking facilities and vehicle washing facilities shall be provided within the site and all vehicles associated with the development shall (wherever possible) be parked within the site and (wherever necessary) be cleaned prior to exiting the site so they do not deposit mud, gravel and other (loose) deleterious materials in the public highway.

REASON: In the interest of highway safety, to ensure that adequate off-street parking provision is made during construction (to reduce the possibility that the development of the site will lead to on-street parking dangers in the area) and to accord with Policies CS5 and CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

4. Prior to the first occupation of the Plot/House 2 dwelling, the hard and soft landscape works (including all access driveway, parking and turning area surfacing materials, as well as boundary treatment designs, dimensions and materials, and supplementary planting) shall be implemented in general accordance with the following approved plans: "Site Plan" (Job No. L277, Drawing No. P25, Revision F, dated 03.11.14); and “Landscape Proposals” (Drawing Number 013.1067.001) submitted as part of application 13/01532/PCD. All planted material shall be maintained and replaced as necessary by the applicant(s) and/or owner(s) of the land at the time for a period of not less than 5 years from the date of planting.

REASON: In the interest of visual amenity, to ensure that the proposed development includes landscaping, planting, boundary treatments and surfacing materials which are appropriate to the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings, to ensure that the work is carried out within a reasonable period and is adequately maintained, and to accord with Policies CS11 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

5. All trees and foliage identified on the submitted plan "Site Survey" (Job No. L277, Drawing No. P02, dated 03.10.12, submitted as part of application 13/00786/FUL) which lie within Area TPO 21A1, except those which are shown to be removed as part of the development on the "Tree Protection Plan" (Sheet No. 2114.TPP, Revision A, dated June 2013) submitted as part of application 13/00786/FUL, shall be retained in perpetuity, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This Condition serves the same purpose as a Woodland Tree Preservation Order: any existing or future self-set trees/foliage is also protected under this Condition. Written permission will be required from the Local Planning Authority for any works to the trees/foliage protected under this Condition.

REASON: To protect the present and future group value of the collection of trees as a whole, to screen the development, in the interests of visual, ecological and general amenities and to accord with Policies CS8, CS11 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

6. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the Section 8 "Conclusions" and Section 9 "Recommendations" contained in the "Tree Survey, Arboricultural Implications Assessment Report and Arboricultural Method Statement" (Ref: 2114.AIA.Rev.A.Church Langton; Date of Inspection 4th July 2012) submitted as part of application 13/00786/FUL, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

76

REASON: To protect the present and future group value of the collection of trees as a whole, to screen the development, in the interests of visual, ecological and general amenities and to accord with Policies CS8, CS11 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

7. If gates, barriers, bollards, chains or other such obstructions are to be erected to the vehicular access they shall be set back a minimum distance of 5 metres behind the highway (grass verge) boundary, shall be hung as to open inwards only and, thereafter, shall be retained as such in perpetuity.

REASON: To enable a vehicle to stand clear of the highway whilst the gates/obstructions are opened/closed and thereby protect the free and safe passage of traffic, including pedestrians, in the public highway, and to accord with Policies CS5 and CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

8. Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling, drainage shall be provided within the site so that surface water does not drain into the public highway and, thereafter, shall be so maintained in perpetuity.

REASON: In the interests of general highway safety, to reduce the possibility of surface water from the site being deposited in the highway and causing dangers to highway users and to accord with Policies CS5 and CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

9. Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling, the access drive from Stonton Road shall be surfaced with hard bound tarmacadam material [as agreed under Landscape Scheme Condition 4 and shown on “Site Plan” (Job No. L277, Drawing No. P25, Revision F, dated 03.11.14)]; for a distance of at least 5 metres behind the highway (grass verge) boundary and, thereafter, shall be so maintained in perpetuity.

REASON: In the interests of general highway safety, to reduce the possibility of deleterious material being deposited in the highway (loose stones etc.) and to accord with Policies CS5 and CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.

10. Prior to the first occupation of the Plot 2 dwelling, the first floor window in the south side elevation serving Bedroom 3, as well as the second floor window in the south side elevation (on the left hand side of the chimney when viewed externally) serving Bedroom 6, shall be glazed with obscure glass (Level 3 obscurity or above), and any opening panes shall be hung on the left (when viewed externally) and fitted with restrictors so that they cannot open more than 45degrees. Thereafter, these windows shall be permanently maintained as such.

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

Informative Notes

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. 01858 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. If the permitted plans involve the carrying out of building work along or close to the boundary, you are advised that under the Party Wall Act 1996 you have a duty to give notice to the adjoining owner of your intentions before commencing this work. 77

3. It is recommended that no burning of waste is undertaken on site 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. Notwithstanding the above, the production of any smoke on site could constitute a Statutory Nuisance under section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and may result in Environmental Health proceedings being taken against the developer.

4. Building works, deliveries, or any site works in connection with the development shall only take place between the hours of 08:00-18:00 Monday to Friday, 08:00-13:00 Saturday and at no time on Sunday or Public/Bank Holidays. Failure to observe these hours and develop in an appropriate manner may result in Environmental Health proceedings being taken against the developer.

5. 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).

6. You will be required to enter into a suitable Legal Agreement with the Highway Authority for the off-site highway works to relocate the existing speed limit signs and village name plate to the southern side of the improved vehicular access. This will involve the amendment to an existing Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and all costs associated with this shall be at the developer's expense. Early engagement in this process is recommended as a TRO will usually take a minimum of 6 months to process.

7. The tree works hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998: 2010 (Recommendations For Tree Work).

8. The applicant is advised that protected wildlife species may be using the site as a nesting place/habitat. All such species are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Should any such species, or evidence of them, be present or be suspected in the site (and potentially affected by the development), the applicant should cease development immediately and contact Natural England, The Maltings, Wharf Road, Grantham, Lincs., NG31 6BH (tel. 01476 584800). All workers should be made aware of the above.

9. Nesting birds and bats, their roosts and their access to these roosts, are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Should birds be present in the trees affected by this application, any felling/surgery should be performed outside the bird nesting season (for example, deferred until autumn). Should bats be present in the trees affected by this application, the applicant should contact Natural England, The Maltings, Wharf Road, Grantham, Lincs., NG31 6BH (tel. 01476 584800). All workers should be made aware of the above.

10. The applicant's attention is drawn to the "Recommendations" Section 7 (pp.11-12) of the 16th July 2013 updated "Curious Ecologists" Biodiversity Report, which should be addressed as part of the development.

78

14/01359/FUL – Lutterworth Erection of building at Lutterworth Soccer Centre Applicant: TD Matthews Construction Ltd including ancillary occupational accommodation for site manager (revised scheme of Target Date: 17/12/2014 13/01543/FUL, 14/00134/FUL, 14/00787/FUL and 14/01172/FUL), at Lutterworth Soccer Academy, Hall Lane, Bitteswell

Recommendation

REFUSE, for the following reason:

There is a general presumption against residential development in open countryside away from the established built form of villages and permission will only normally be granted for the construction of new dwellings where they are essential for the needs of agriculture, forestry or another activity appropriately located in the countryside.

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is an essential need for a dwelling to serve the business, or that there are no other buildings within the site capable of meeting the applicant’s objectives should such a need be demonstrated.

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed dwelling is capable of being sustained by the enterprise, or that the size of the proposed dwelling is commensurate with the functional requirement of the enterprise.

The proposal would therefore represent an inappropriate and unsustainable form of development that would be contrary to paragraphs 14, 30, 55, 93 and 95 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies CS5, CS9 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy, and the benefits of provision of an additional dwelling are significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the adverse impacts identified.

Note to applicant: The decision has been reached taking into account paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Site:

The application site is located some way to the north of both Bitteswell and Lutterworth, due west of the Leicester Road, with access from Hall Lane (to the north), and lies within open countryside and outside of any defined Limits to Development. The site does not fall within a designated Conservation Area. The site is bounded to west, north and east by land in sport and recreational use, with the football club house (constructed in c.2007) immediately north and tennis club building and bowls club building both to the north/west. The nearest residential neighbour is The Lodge, approx. 100m to the south/south-east.

The Proposal:

The current proposal, a revised scheme of 13/01543/FUL, 14/00134/FUL, 14/00787/FUL and 14/01172/FUL (and therefore the fifth application for a very similar proposal – the previous three were identical to each other), is for the erection of a building at Lutterworth Soccer Centre including ancillary occupational accommodation for site manager. The purpose of the building is, to “support and safeguard [recent] investment and expansion and deter criminal activity that has occurred at the site since 2006 ensuring Hall Park remains a safe and accessible environment”. In connection with the proposed ground floor use, it is stated that, “Such is the success and popularity of the Centre additional accommodation is now required to meet this identified demand.”

79

The proposed building would have a gross external floor area (GEA) of 298.9 sq m, would be sited to the south of the function suite building (‘The Piano Room’), would have a length across of 15.5m (equal to that of the function suite building), max depth of 12.05m, eaves height of 5.45m and ridge height of 6.75m, with low pitched roof. The dwelling would be accessed via Hall Lane, would be sited approx. 125m from the Hall Lane access and, sited behind the function suite building, would be out of sight of the Hall Lane access point.

The building would feature a classroom, changing rooms, kitchen and office at ground floor level, and a dwelling at first floor level, with open plan lounge-diner, kitchen, two bedrooms and a bathroom. The proposed dwelling would have a GEA of 149.5 sq m.

Policy

National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”):

Paragraphs 6 – 9, 13, 14, 17 (presumption + core planning principles), 18-20 and 22 (economy), 29–36 and 40-41 (sustainable transport), 47–55 (housing), 56–67 (design), 69–75 (healthy communities), 93–104 (climate change and flooding), 109–125 (natural environment), and 186– 206 (decision taking)

Local Policy:

Harborough District Council Core Strategy CS1 – Spatial Strategy for Harborough (parts (a), (b), (h), (i) and (l) are relevant) CS2 – Delivering New Housing CS5 – Providing Sustainable Transport CS8 – Protecting and Enhancing Green Infrastructure CS9 – Addressing Climate Change CS10 – Addressing Flood Risk CS11 – Promoting Design and Built Heritage CS17 – Rural Centres, Rural Villages and Countryside

Local Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes17: SPG Note 1: Design principles SPG Note 3: Small residential developments SPG 2 / 5 – Residential development

Other The national Planning Practice Guidance Suite (06.03.14) Appendix A to Circular 11/95 – Use of conditions in planning permission Circular 06/2005 – Biodiversity including statutory obligations within the planning system

Preparation of new Local Plan for Harborough District including APPENDIX B Review of Core Strategy: NPPF Compatibility (3rd December report to Council 2012)

Consultations / Representations:

Highways (LCC): No comments

Ecology (LCC): No objections subject to Note to Applicant re responsibilities re habitats esp bats

17 Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes were adopted by the Council in March 2003 following public consultation, and supplement the policies of the Local Plan. Full Council has voted to retain the said SPGs and link them to Core Strategy policies as applicable, until a new Supplementary Planning Document is produced. 80

Lutterworth Town Council: Members RESOLVED to SUPPORT the application.

Bitteswell Parish Council: Wishes to register its OBJECTION to the application; the grounds for objection are given below:

Background – Over several years a series of disparate commercial developments have taken place which form a complex at the self-styled ‘Hall Park’, located in Hall Lane, Bitteswell. The buildings and other facilities at the Site, along with permanent and temporary advertising material, represent an example of inappropriate and unsightly development in the countryside which adversely affects the character and appearance of the surrounding environment.

Proposal – In the Design and Access Statement (DAS) the Applicant claims that the complex is a target for criminal activity, and that there is a need for 24hr presence at the Site. The DAS also refers to the Applicant’s intent to submit a log of the criminal activity and the associated police crime reference numbers. This information was not included in the version of the planning application provided by the Council.

Policy – Paragraph 28 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) recognises the need to support the rural economy, including leisure development. However, a fundamental pre- condition to meriting support is that such development respects the character of the countryside. It is self-evident that the proposed dwelling in this location would be acutely alien to the character of the surrounding countryside setting.

Paragraph 55, Isolated Homes in the Countryside – None of the criteria set out in this paragraph is satisfied by the proposed development. By definition, the application site cannot be regarded as a sustainable location.

Saved Policy HS/8, Limits to Development – It is evident that the development proposed is outside the Limits to Development for Bitteswell. It is equally plain that the design and layout of the proposed development would be wholly out of keeping with the scale, form and character of Bitteswell and the locality. It follows that the application fails to satisfy all the criteria defined in this policy. The application is therefore contrary to Policy HS/8.

The issue of security at Hall Park – The salient reason advanced by the Applicant for the proposed occupational dwelling is that a 24 hour managerial presence would, “deter criminal activity that has occurred at the site since 2006”.

If indeed there is a chronic security problem at the site there are solutions, adopted by other business enterprises, which do not require the erection of a…dwelling. For example, by the provision of space for a security office in one of the existing buildings on the site or, if this is impracticable, the construction of a dedicated security office as an annex to an existing building. The number of security personnel to be deployed will, among other things, be determined by the Applicant’s perceived level of criminal activity at the site.

It is here relevant to note that from the regular meetings between the Parish Council and police officers, at which the incidence of crime in the Parish is reviewed, we have no record or recollection of any reports of criminal activity at Hall Park.

Recommendation – Taking account of the matters we have raised, Bitteswell Parish Council concludes that the Applicant has adduced no convincing reasons, planning or otherwise, that justify the proposed development. Accordingly, we urge refusal of the application in its present form.

Ward Councillor: No comments received 81

Representations: None received. One letter of objection received to previous application for same proposal (from immediate neighbour), issues raised include: Summary – the reasons given are not sufficient to allow this dwelling. (1) Previous buildings have been used for purposes different to those for which they were first approved (considerable detail given by objector) (2) Given this experience, it is questionable whether the dwelling would remain tied to the business (3) There are existing buildings suitable for converting into a flat for use by a site manager; these should be used instead (4) The site’s entrance gate is never shut (5) The neighbour had break-ins in the past but since the layby was installed has not suffered any break-ins. (6) Other precautions should be taken at the site to improve safety rather than simply erect a dwelling (7) The size of proposed dwelling makes it more likely it would be changed in future to a private dwelling (8) A group of conifer trees was planted 6 years ago, apparently with this proposal in mind – objector not therefore surprised by its submission

Other Information

History: 14/01172/FUL – Erection of dwelling (to house football club site manager / security officer) – withdrawn by applicant, 29.09.14, pending refusal 14/00787/FUL – Erection of dwelling (to house football club site manager / security officer) – refused, 21.07.2014 14/00134/FUL – Erection of dwelling (to house football club site manager / security officer) – withdrawn 27.03.2014, pending refusal 13/01543/FUL – Erection of dwelling (to house football club site manager / security officer) – refused 11.12.2013 10/01031/FUL – Internal alterations to existing changing rooms, first aid/physio room, office/reception room and store rooms to form bar/cafe and associated seating area, and ancillary retail shop, with relocated reception and first aid room, including alterations to external windows and doors – granted, conditions, 23.09.2010 05/00438/FUL – Erection of dance studio – granted, conditions, 03.06.05 04/02073/FUL – Erection of dance studio – withdrawn 01/00484/FUL – Change of use of part of sports ground to caravan storage (150 maximum) and covered stand facility to premier football pitch – refused 11.07.01, appeal dismissed 27.12.01 00/01485/FUL – Change of use to allow car boot sales inside clubhouse and on car park and field – granted, conditions, 04.04.01 91/02170/3P – Formation of bowling green and erection of stores for football club and bowls club and 2no ball stop fences – granted, 12.02.92 90/01038/3P – Use of land as a football ground and construction of access – granted, conditions, 13.03.91

Reason for Report to Committee: This application is being reported to the Planning Committee for determination at the request of the Ward Councillor.

Pre-application advice This took the form of a site meeting, involving the principal planning officer and the case officer, with applicants and their planning agent, between applications #1 and #2.

The officer advice given was negative; the applicant was advised that security was not a sufficient justification for a new dwelling in this location, and that security measures needed to 82

be looked at before any dwelling considered. It was noted that members of public can freely walk onto and around the site without being approached/stopped.

There was no pre-application advice sought or given prior to the submission of the current application, the previous application (14/01172) or the original application (13/01543/FUL).

Five year housing supply Paragraph 47 of the Framework states that where local planning authorities cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites they should consider favourably planning applications for housing. As at 31st March 2014 the Council had 4.64 years of housing supply (including a 20% buffer). This proposal would make a small contribution towards meeting the shortfall in the District’s housing supply, and some weight must be attached to this consideration.

Framework paragraph 14 includes: At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development…For decision-taking this 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 permission unless: –– any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or –– specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted

The small contribution to housing supply proposed must be weighed against the impacts of granting permisison where adverse impacts and conflict policy are identified a sin this case.

EIA Development This application is not an EIA development, as determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011.

Planning Considerations:

Planning Considerations Section 38(6) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning applications be determined in accordance with the relevant polices contained within the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. At the present time the Development Plan for the site comprises the Harborough District Core Strategy and the ‘retained’ polices of the Harborough District Local Plan (HDLP). As this application is for full planning permission for the erection of a dwelling in the countryside, paragraphs 14 and 55 of the Framework is considered of most relevance, along with Policies CS2, CS5, CS9, CS11 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy. These policies are set out in full on the Council’s website.

Policy CS17 states that outside Rural Centres and selected rural villages (as explained at para 6.62 of the Core Strategy), new development in the Countryside “and other settlements not identified as selected rural villages” will be strictly controlled, and that only development required for the purposes of agriculture, woodland management, sport and recreation, local food initiatives, tourism and renewable energy generation will be appropriate in principle.

Policy CS5 states that the majority of development will be located in areas well served by local services to reduce the need to travel, where people can gain convenient access to public transport services, and Policy CS9 states that new development will be directed towards the most sustainable locations.

83

Paragraph 49 of the Framework states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development (para 14) and para 55 states that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Para 30 expects Councils in preparing local plans to support a pattern of development which, where reasonable to do so, facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport. Core Strategy Policies CS5, CS9 and CS17 are not inconsistent with these elements of the Framework.

Ground floor accommodation This element of the proposal would provide additional sports facilities that would enhance the existing offer at the site and result in community benefits, and therefore finds support from Core Strategy Policy CS17, and paragraphs 69 and 70 of the Framework.

However, it should be noted that in 2010 (ref. 10/01031/FUL) planning permission was granted for development of the Soccer Academy building which included the conversion of changing rooms, the first aid room, office room and store rooms to form a bar/café, seating area, retail shop, and the consequent loss of the office and a dedicated first aid room. The current planning application now proposes to reinstate that provision.

Principle: The proposed (first floor) dwelling is located in the countryside, at a distance of approx. 2km from the nearest key services (i.e. primary school and public house at Bitteswell), and is therefore is an isolated location, one in which future residents would be almost totally reliant on the use of private cars. Paragraph 55 of the Framework states that, LPAs should “avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances”.

The proposed dwelling is ONLY acceptable in this location if it is justified by reason of a land based business, i.e. is required to enable agricultural or forestry or similar workers to live at or in the immediate vicinity of their place of work. One of the special circumstances mentioned by para 55 is, “the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside”. The central thrust of the Framework (cf. para 14) is that development must be sustainable, i.e. capable of being sustained, and the business planned on a sound financial basis.

In a recent appeal decision for a proposed occupational dwelling (agricultural in this case) (appeal ref. 11/2165756, decision 18 June 2012), the Inspector stated:

10. It is no longer part of national planning policy to verify that a new business requiring a dwelling on site is a genuine enterprise that is reasonably likely to succeed. However, it was common ground that in order to protect the countryside from unnecessary development it is a reasonable test to apply. I agree with this assessment and consider the test to be an important tool in assessing this application….

The same conclusion has been reached in other appeal decisions. In appeal ref. 12/2171046, decision 2 Aug 2012, the Inspector stated:

8. …Firstly, the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside has to be judged objectively; secondly, whilst it is no longer the case that evidence of essential need must be assessed against the tests set out in Annex A, this does not mean that evidence that shows that the requirements of Annex A are not met cannot be taken into account; thirdly, the Annex A test remains an appropriate way to assess ‘essential need’ as it is well-established and well understood, even though it no longer forms part of Government policy. It is, therefore, still open to decision makers to assess need against the tests set out in Annex A and conclude, in particular local circumstances, when those tests have not been met, even though PPS7 can no longer be cited as the authority for carrying out such an assessment.

84

And in appeal ref. 13/2197662, decision 18 Sep 2013, the Inspector stated:

7. …The tests in PPS7 Annex A are no longer government policy. However, the main parties’ agricultural advisers’ representations generally reflect that approach. As the PPS7 Annex A tests provide an objective basis for considering the essential need for a permanent dwelling, I shall take them into account in this appeal.

12. …to allow a permanent dwelling that need should also be sustainable. So, the enterprise, including the cost of the proposed dwelling, should be financially viable, and it should have a reasonable prospect of remaining so.

17. it is an established principle that it is the needs of the enterprise, rather than those of the appellant, that would be relevant in determining the size of dwelling that would be appropriate to a particular [land based business]

And in a recent appeal in the Harborough District, ref. 14/2218996, decision 18 Aug 2014, the Inspector stated:

13. The appellant considers that the financial test is irrelevant because this was a requirement of PPS7 Annex A; that has now been superseded by the NPPF, which doesn’t mention such a test. I am mindful that the previous advice is no longer extant. However, the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work invariably requires consideration to be given to both functional and financial matters… …Otherwise there is a risk that the [proposal] would make the enterprise financially unsustainable and the …dwelling would fail to meet the essential need for the rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work and indeed may consequently lead to applications for the removal of the agricultural occupancy condition.

And in another recent appeal in the Harborough District, ref. 14/2216087, decision 9 Sept 2014, the Inspector stated:

10. …Given that the main thrust of the Framework is to achieve sustainable development, I consider it reasonable to consider the functional need and financial viability of the rural enterprise.

It is therefore necessary to establish whether the proposed dwelling is, (a) Essential - including its provision, its siting and its size (b) Economically sustainable - i.e. capable of being sustained

Supporting information submitted by the applicant It is stated that ‘a 24 hour managerial presence on the site’ will ensure Hall Park remains, “a safe and accessible environment where crime and disorder, or the fear of crime, will not undermine the attractiveness or future viability of the site”; and “criminal activity is often associated with the lay-by on the Leicester Road where perpetrators enter the rear of the site under the cover of darkness that makes any activity currently difficult to detect and almost impossible to react to in a timely manner”.

As with the last three applications (14/00134/FUL, 14/00787/FUL and 14/01172/FUL), the applicant also states that, “the accommodation is …integrated with the main clubhouse and will afford improved surveillance (when combined with other security measures such as CCTV and lighting) over the whole site and particularly the south and east which is vulnerable to unauthorised access”. This last statement is amended from a similar statement made under 13/01543/FUL: “the location of the dwelling will give vastly improved surveillance of the south and east of the site which at the moment are particularly vulnerable to unauthorised access”.

As with the last three applications, the applicant’s agent has submitted a log of the criminal activity and the associated police crime reference numbers, and also a statement from the 85

applicant’s accountant in relation to (i) the funds available to the applicant for construction of the dwelling, and (ii) the annual rental income from Hall Park. The statement is similar to one submitted with 13/01543/FUL, but gives a little more detail (i.e. a breakdown of different rental incomes, i.e. the day nursery, the performing arts centre, the tennis club, the piano room) and is signed under the Statutory Declaration Act 1835.

As with 14/00787/FUL and 14/01172/FUL, the applicant’s agent has also submitted letters of support from businesses who operate from the site, namely the bowling club, tennis club, nursery, performing arts centre and the football club.

As with 14/01172/FUL, the applicant’s agent has submitted a set of profit and loss accounts for 2012, 2013 and 2014 for the applicant company, ‘TD MATTHEWS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED’. No further information is provided as to the nature of the company, but it is noted that Turnover is labelled ‘Property management income’. The limited information available on the internet suggests TD Matthews is a builder, and is this corroborated by the title of the accounts, “TD Matthews Construction Ltd’. This would suggest the accounts relate to a construction company rather than to the Lutterworth Soccer Academy, for which the accommodation is sought.

The ONLY new information received in connection with this latest application is the following statement in relation to the proposed dwelling –

“The principle of a full time management presence on the site was accepted by the LPA with the residential accommodation that was approved within the existing Montessori building. However this accommodation is no longer available as it has been occupied for in excess of 10 years in breach of the occupational condition. A separate application will be submitted in respect of the Montessori accommodation via a CLU. Given this planning history where the LPA has previously accepted a management presence on the site, the proposed ancillary occupational accommodation will replace that lost in the Montessori building and can be conditioned accordingly.”

[Officer comment: The Flat does not appear to be benefit from planning permission, and no evidence has been provided to demonstrate its continual presence and occupation for a period in excess of 10 years.]

The applicant’s case: The applicant asserts that the proposed dwelling is required for safety and security reasons and on the basis that it would “assist with the management and maintenance of the facility”. However, aside from the log of criminal activity and the associated police crime reference numbers in most of those instances, and supportive letters from businesses that operate from the site, no evidence has been provided to support the contention that a new dwelling at the site is essential.

Log of criminal activity (with crime reference numbers unless noted): 2006 – car stolen from car park ref tennis club (no crime ref number); June 2007 – tractor stolen from site; 2008 – two instances of ground works equipment being stolen; 2008 and 2009 – two instances of break in at the performing arts centre; 2009 – car stolen from site; 2010 – lead roof stolen from dance studio (no crime ref number); 2011 – break in at the soccer centre (no crime ref number); July 2012 – theft; goods stolen; 2012 – cellar broken into at the rear of the soccer centre; 2013 – bowls club bar broken into; goods stolen (no crime ref number).

Security reasons do not justify a new dwelling, and the applicant’s agent agrees: “I accept security alone is not justification for the dwelling” (email from Mr Cheshire, 04.12.13, 0851 hours). Like every other business in the countryside, the onus is on the applicant to provide suitable onsite security – barriers, CCTV cameras, guard dogs, security guards, etc. Permitting a new dwelling on this basis would not only undermine policies designed to protect the countryside, but would also set a dangerous and unwelcome precedent for other rural businesses to argue the need for a new dwelling. 86

Turning to letters of support received from businesses operating from the site, there is a very clear difference between (a) what is desirable to improve the business and (b) what is essential. The planning system deliberately sets a high bar of “essential” so as to avoid the proliferation of new dwellings in the countryside.

The applicant’s agent cites the case of a dwelling at Market Bosworth golf course granted permission by Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council (app ref. 08/00750/FUL) on the basis, the agent advises, of the need for adequate site management and security. However, no further details of that case have been provided; each case is to be considered on its own merits, and it is an established planning principle that security will rarely if ever be a reason for granting consent for such dwellings.

There appears to be an existing residential presence at Hall Park – a property known as ‘The Flat, Lutterworth Town Football Club’, approx. 40m north of the siting of the proposed dwelling. Notwithstanding, the Football Club does benefit from an existing building which could provide a site manager’s accommodation, if that essential need were to be demonstrated.

As noted above, the applicant considers that this Flat establishes the principle of full time management presence on site. However, officers note that the Flat does not appear to be benefit from planning permission, and no evidence has been provided to demonstrate its continual presence and occupation for a period in excess of 10 years. Even if the Flat had been granted planning permission, planning applications must be judged on their own merits in light of current planning policy. Current policies dictate that the proposed dwelling requires detailed justification and the LPA has to be satisfied it is essential and sustainable.

A brief statement from the applicant’s accountant has been submitted, which declares (under the Statutory Declaration Act 1835) that the applicant has sufficient funds available for construction of the dwelling (giving a breakdown of different rental incomes, i.e. the day nursery, the performing arts centre, the tennis club, the piano room and the soccer centre), and sufficient annual rental income from Hall Park to sustain the dwelling. Unfortunately, this is only an assertion – there is no evidence of outgoings and whether there is indeed sufficient profit to construct the dwelling and sustain the site manager.

No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the funds declared by the accountant are from rental income or business carried on at the site. Indeed, the evidence suggests these cash resources relate to a construction company (TD Matthews Construction Ltd) rather than to the Lutterworth Soccer Academy, as they would be required to do in order to demonstrate that the dwelling is capable of being sustained by the enterprise for which it is proposed to serve. In addition, the accounts include nothing for wages in 2012 and 2013, and only a very small amount in 2014, meaning that the salary of a security manager has not been accounted for.

These are serious shortcomings. The need for the dwelling is predicated on the business at the application site, i.e. the business or businesses which the dwelling is proposed to serve. The applicant has submitted profit and loss accounts relating to a different business. The information submitted therefore falls well short of what is required to demonstrate that the proposal is capable of being sustained by the Soccer Academy.

Conclusion on the Principle: It is an established principle that rural workers proposing a remotely located dwelling have to demonstrate that it is essential for there to be an on site presence, that the business itself can support the construction of that dwelling, and that the dwelling is capable of being sustained by the enterprise. Therefore the applicant has so far failed to provide sufficient evidence on all three points.

87

In summary, it has not been demonstrated that there is an essential need for a dwelling at the application site, or for a dwelling of this size and in the location proposed, or that the dwelling is economically sustainable.

In addition, by virtue of its location away from any settlement, the proposal would not support a vibrant and healthy community, and would not be in a location accessible to key services and would therefore not be a socially sustainable form of development. No evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that to refuse the proposal would result in the loss of the facility or reduce Bitteswell or Lutterworth’s ability to meet its day to day needs.

It is therefore considered that the enterprise would be unable to sustain the proposal in the long- term and the proposal therefore fails to accord with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and would fail to accord with Core Strategy Policies CS9 and CS17 and paragraphs 14, 30, 55, 93 and 95 of the Framework.

Amenity By virtue of its scale, massing, siting and appearance, the proposed building would have a significant impact on the visual amenity of the locality. Views are possible from Leicester Road (east/south-east), Hall Lane (north) and from a greater distance from Hall Lane and Ashby Lane (west).

Notwithstanding visibility, it is important that the proposed design respects and responds to local character and history (para 58, Framework, CS Policy CS11), is visually attractive as a result of good architecture (para 58, Framework, CS Policy CS11) and integrates well into its surroundings (para 61, Framework, CS Policy CS11) and is of a scale and design that does not cause damage to the character and amenity of the locality.

The proposed building/dwelling, while not especially tall (eaves 5.4m, ridge 6.75m), has a bland, indistinctive appearance, a lack of identity and character or sense of place, a flat elevational treatment, relatively shallow pitch of roof, and poor detailing, and a massing that emphasises its scale.

However, it would relate adequately to its surroundings, and would present a moderately active frontage to the south, facing towards the asserted origin of trespassers / thieves, with windows from a manager’s site office at ground floor level, although first floor windows serving bedrooms are still placed to the corner of the building with the best surveillance. The proposed dwelling may potentially achieve the stated objective of providing surveillance to this southern ‘entrance’.

The proposed building would be sited approx. 130m from the nearest residential neighbour (The Lodge, broadly south-east), and given this distance and intervening vegetation it is considered the proposal would safeguard the neighbour’s living conditions.

Overall, on balance, it is considered that subject to the use of satisfactory bricks and tiles – which should therefore be a condition of any approval, the proposal would adequately respect its surroundings and not adversely affect the character and visual amenity of the locality, and thus accord with Policy CS11 of the Core Strategy and SPG3 small developments.

Highway Safety, Access & Parking The local Highway authority has no comments to make on the application from a highway safety perspective, and it is therefore considered the proposal accords with Core Strategy Policy CS5.

Conclusion The proposal would not adversely affect residential amenity as there are no issues of overlooking created and will not be overbearing, and the proposal would not adversely affect highway safety and, on balance and subject to conditions, the proposal would adequately respect its surroundings and not cause detrimental harm to the qualities, character and amenity of the locality. 88

However, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed dwelling is capable of being sustained by the current enterprise, or that there is an essential need for a dwelling to serve the business. Further, if a need could be substantiated, it has not been demonstrated that there are no other buildings or locations within the site capable of meeting the applicant’s objectives. In addition, it has not been demonstrated that the size of the proposed dwelling is commensurate with the functional requirement of the enterprise, or that the current enterprise would be able to sustain the cost of the dwelling.

The proposal would therefore represent an inappropriate form of development within the open countryside; that would not comply with the Framework’s presumption in favour of sustainable development; and insufficient justification has been provided to demonstrate why the proposed development should override local or national planning policy.

The proposal would thus fail to comply with Policies CS5, CS9 and CS17 of the Core Strategy and paragraphs 14, 30, 55, 93 and 95 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and the benefits of provision of an additional dwelling are significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the adverse impacts identified.

89