F

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD

23 RD APRIL 2009

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES

APPLICATION UPON WHICH THE COUNTY PLANNING AUTHORITY IS CONSULTED BY THE DISTRICT COUNCIL

PART A – SUMMARY REPORT

APP. NOS. & DATE: 2009/0157/03 – Received by L.C.C. on 24 th February 2009

PROPOSAL: Outline application for residential development of 175 dwellings with associated access, landscaping and public open space (all matters except means of access reserved for subsequent approval).

LOCATION: Land off Frolesworth Road, ()

APPLICANT: David Wilson Homes.

MAIN ISSUES: Housing land availability in the 5 year period and locational policies.

RECOMMENDATION: Objection, because there is not overriding need for the development in this location.

Circulation Under Local Issues Alert Procedure

Mr. W. Liquorish JP, CC

Officer to Contact

Mr. D. Szymanski (Tel: 0116 3057050) E-Mail: [email protected] 2 2009/0157/03 – continued

PART B – MAIN REPORT

Background

1. The officers of the County Planning Authority consider Harborough District Council should be advised of the CPAs views on the proposals subject of this report in the context of strategic planning policies for the area. As the Regional Plan has been published, this has resulted in the deletion of the remaining Structure Plan policies. Therefore comments would be made in this context. A separate consultation has been carried out with the CPA in regard of the appropriate developer contributions towards services and infrastructure arising from this proposal.

Description of Proposal

2. The application relates to land situated to the east of Frolesworth Road adjoining the south of Broughton Astley. This is one of two applications submitted by David Wilson Homes on Greenfield land at Broughton Astley. The other application (ref. 2009/0156/03) is located to the west of the village and is considered elsewhere on this agenda. The application site is approximately 6.2 hectares of land currently in agricultural use. To the north the site is bound by residential properties on the southern edge of Broughton Astley. To the east it is bound by a small brook, west by the Frolesworth Road and Mill Farm and to the south by open countryside. To the west of Frolesworth Road lies a recreation ground. There is an existing farm (Mill Farm) which would separate part of the development from Frolesworth Road.

3. The planning application is seeking outline planning permission for the erection of 175 dwellings, with all other matters except access to be agreed at the reserved matters stage. Access to the site is proposed to be gained from a roundabout off the Frolesworth Road to the west of the site. Public footpaths W58 and W60 cross southern and northern parts of the site respectively, with W61 running along the northern boundary. It is proposed to retain these along their definitive lines. The application proposes a variety of dwellings from 1- bedroom apartments to 5-bedroom houses. It is proposed 30% of these would be affordable houses.

4. The applicant acknowledges that the application site lies outside the limits to development of Broughton Astley. However, it considers that there are other material considerations which mean that the application should be looked upon favourably. These include the lack of a proven 5 year supply of land as required paragraph 54 of PPS3, and, the provision of much needed affordable housing to address a manifest shortfall in the District. The application proposes a number of ‘local play areas’ for children to play in, however, given the proximity to the recreation ground, the applicant does not intend to provide any playing pitches.

5. The application site was submitted for consideration in the Housing and Employment Development Plan Document in 2006. There have been delays to the production of the DPDs due to the review of the RSS. The District Council is seeking advice from the government prior to consulting on a second version of its Core Strategy in-light of eco-town proposals.

DC® BOARD 23/04/2009 3 2009/0157/03 – continued

DC® BOARD 23/04/2009 4 2009/0157/03 – continued

6. The applicant submitted a desk based Archaeological Assessment with the application which indicates that the site has remained largely unchanged since the 1880s. This concluded that the application site lies within an area of moderate archaeological potential. There is documentary evidence relating to a post-medieval windmill and earthworks related top a field system. Geophysical surveys show anomalies in the south eastern part of the site, in the perceived location of the windmill. The report concludes that the site has moderate archaeological potential.

7. An Ecological Assessment has been submitted with the planning application. This concludes that the site has limited potential to provide a habitat for protected species, but the trees and hedgerows are of local importance and should be retained where possible. It is also proposed to provide a buffer zone of 8m to the stream on the eastern boundary of the site which is a wildlife corridor.

8. The applicant states that the proposed development has been designed to minimise its visual impact in the landscape. This would be achieved by including new planting within the scheme and by retaining existing trees and hedgerows on the site boundaries and running through the site. The Landscape/Visual Assessment concludes that when complete, the proposed development would have a ‘slightly adverse’ visual impact, with the worst impact from houses immediately surrounding the site boundary. The application proposes built form between one and two and a half storeys high. In general terms the applicant states that the development has been built to avoid a car-dominated street scene whilst ensuring an excellent level of overlooking on pedestrian and cycle routes.

9. The applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment with the application. This concludes that there should be no overriding objection to the development of the site in transport terms. It concludes that there are regular bus services to Leicester, and Rugby and that bus services are within easy walking distance and provide a viable alternative to the private car. The site is also within adequate walking distance of the village centre, local schools and employment areas. The proposed development would require the provision of a roundabout and an extension to the 30mph speed limit.

10. A Flood Risk Assessment indicates that a small section of the western part of the site may be within the flood plain. The applicant is proposing a surface water balancing feature to the north of the site to deal with run-off. No dwellings would be located on the part of the site within the floodplain and it is proposed to maintain an 8 metre easement to the brook.

Planning Policy

11. National Planning Policy Guidance relevant to the application is set out in PPS 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development); PPS 3: (Housing), PPS 7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas), PPG 13 (Transport) and PPS25 (Development and Flood Risk). The Development Plan in this instance is made up of the East Midlands Regional Plan (EMRP) adopted in March 2009 and the Harborough District Local Plan (HDLP) adopted in April 2001.

12. The built development would be located on agricultural fields designated open countryside on the Harborough Local Plan Proposals Map. Policy EV/5 of the

DC® BOARD 23/04/2009 5 2009/0157/03 – continued

Local Plan sets out general considerations and criteria for assessing development proposals in the countryside. There are no specific land uses encouraged or precluded, however, the policy makes it clear that development will be strictly controlled.

13. The East Midlands Regional Plan was published in March 2009 and provides new figures for the provision of dwellings in . These figures assume primacy as they supersede those in the Harborough District Local Plan and the remaining structure plan policies have been deleted with the adoption of the EMRP. Policy 13A requires Harborough District to provide 350 dwellings per year between 2006 – 2026 (7,000 over the plan period). Policy 14 requires that 33% of the dwellings provided in Leicester and Leicestershire are affordable houses.

14. The relevant policies in these documents are set out in Appendix A attached to this report.

Assessment of Proposal

15. This application has to be assessed in the light of the relevant national, strategic and local plan policies (see Appendix). It should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless there are material considerations that would indicate otherwise. The fundamental issue in this case relates to the provision for strategic housing requirements in the District, including the required 5-year supply of deliverable housing land and the release of a greenfield site

Housing land requirements

16. PPS 3 states that for sites to be considered deliverable they must be available, suitable and achievable within a five year period. The 350 dwelling per year requirement of Policy 13A of the EMRP, means that the District must be able to demonstrate sufficient sites to accommodate 1,750 dwellings over a 5 year period, to conform with the requirements of PPS3. The EMRP states that Districts can test higher figures through their LDF.

17. The applicant has provided an analysis of Harborough’s housing requirements. Between 2001 and 2008 the emerging RSS required the District to complete 2,580 dwellings. It actually completed 2,749 with 586 of those in the last financial year. The applicant’s assessment concludes that on the basis of emerging RSS figures that the District should provide an additional 1,911 dwellings over the next 5 years to 2013, when considering targets and completions from the previous seven years. The applicant confirms that the most recent Annual Monitoring Report identifies potential completions of 1,519 for the next five years, leaving a shortfall of 392. The applicant claims that certain major sites which would contribute towards the completions (Wistow Road (Kibworth) and Farndon Road ()) could be inactive until 2010 due to current economic circumstances. It also cites an over-estimation of a site with outline permission.

18. Since the applicant’s assessment was undertaken the EMRP has been adopted. It is considered that the applicant should be providing an assessment of need on the adopted EMRP figures (1,750 dwellings over 5 years). These new figures reduced the number of dwellings required to be provided (from the emerging

DC® BOARD 23/04/2009 6 2009/0157/03 – continued

RSS) in the District by 330 dwellings from 2008/9 – 2012/13. The EMRP apportionment begins at 2006, therefore to get a true figure of housing need, the completions from the previous two years also need to be considered. In that instance the EMRP requirement is for 2,450 dwellings from 2006 – 2013. Combining the District’s 2 years of completions and its land availability, gives a figure of 2,555 dwellings against the adopted EMRP requirements of 2,450, leaving a surplus of 105 dwellings.

19. Although the applicant appears to question the District’s assumptions on its 5 year completions (2008/9 – 2012/13), the Districts Housing Monitoring Information Paper (published in March 2008) considers that it has enough available land for 1,519 dwellings. Unless the District Council has good reason to believe that the available sites will not come forward, then it is considered the District Council should refuse planning permission for the proposed development.

20. It is considered that the proposed development would conflict with the provisions of Policy EV/ 5 of the Local Plan due to its urbanising affect. Unlike application ref. 2009/0156/03 the development does not have a coalescing effect between Broughton Astley and another settlement. On-balance it is slightly closer to the village centre and local schools than application ref. 2009/0156/03 at Coventry Road. On that basis it should considered a more appropriate site than the Coventry Road proposal. As there appears to be a limited over-provision in housing land it would appear that there is no overriding justification for the development, as the applicant has suggested. In addition PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas states that development in the open countryside away from existing settlements, or outside areas allocated for development in development plans, should be strictly controlled.

Other Material Considerations

21. The site would be reasonably well located in terms of access to public transport and local services. However, the Highway Authority has objected due to a lack of information. Through the submission of appropriate Archaeological Assessment, Ecological Assessment, and Flood Risk Assessment, subject to appropriate mitigation measures, it would appear that the proposed development could comply with other relevant policies of the development plan.

Conclusion

22. The development site is located within the open countryside and is not allocated within the Harborough District Local Plan for residential development. Although notwithstanding its Countryside location, the site could be considered to be a relatively sustainable location.

23. The annual rate of housing completions in the recent past in Harborough District has satisfied the strategic requirements and there would be a limited oversupply of housing land for the next 5 years. Therefore the 5-year supply of housing land would seem achievable in the context of PPS 3, in which case there would be no overriding case for immediate release of this land in the short-term. In stating this, the site should be more of a priority for development than application ref. 2009/0156/03.

DC® BOARD 23/04/2009 7 2009/0157/03 – continued

Recommendation

The Cabinet be recommended to forward the following as the views of the County Planning Authority: -

That Harborough District Council be advised that in the context of national policy guidance (particularly PPS3) and the policies of the adopted East Midlands Regional Plan and the Harborough District Local Plan, the County Planning Authority objects to the proposed development unless the District Council, after having re-assessed its 5 year supply of available land, has reason to believe there will be a significant shortfall in housing provision in the District.

In-light of the available evidence the County Planning Authority considers that the release of this site is not appropriate, as the District Council has satisfied the requirement for an identified and deliverable five-year housing supply as required by PPS 3: Housing.

Furthermore, whilst the site is relatively well related to Broughton Astley village centre and public transport facilities, it is within the open countryside. As such, the development constitutes an unwarranted large scale extension of existing built-up limits, having an adverse impact in terms its urbanising effect.

It is considered that the need and location of such major housing developments should more properly be determined through the Local Development Framework process.

DC® BOARD 23/04/2009 Appendix A 8 2009/0157/03 – continued

National Policy Guidance

1. Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS 1) (Delivering Sustainable Development) deals with the Government’s overall objectives for the planning system through a plan- led system, and retains the primacy of the development plan (Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). It sets out the Government's overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development and creating sustainable urban and rural communities while achieving other objectives such as protecting and enhancing the natural environment and the quality and character of the countryside and existing communities; and ensuring that new development is located where everyone can access services or facilities on foot, bicycle or public transport rather than having to rely on access by car.

2. Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) (Housing) issued in November 2006 sets out the Government’s intention to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of living in a decent home, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live. It is intended that previously developed land will provide sites for at least 60% of new housing.

3. The guidance promotes the creation of sustainable communities, locations which offer a range of community facilities with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. Housing densities of 30 dwellings/ha should be used as a national indicative minimum. A sufficient and continuous supply of housing land should be provided to meet housing requirements, delivered through the development plan system, with a continuous five year supply of deliverable sites.

4. Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS 7) (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) states that development in the open countryside away from existing settlements, or outside areas allocated for development in development plans, should be strictly controlled; the Government’s overall aim is to protect the countryside. Priority should be given to the re-use of previously developed (brownfield sites) in preference to the development of greenfield sites, except where there are no brownfield sites available, or these sites perform so poorly in terms of sustainability considerations (for example in their remoteness from settlements and services) in comparison with greenfield sites.

5. Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (PPG13) (Transport) sets out the Government’s intentions to secure an integrated land use-transportation policy that reduces the growth in use of the private car and encourages alternative means of transport.

6. Local authorities should seek to make maximum use of the most accessible sites, such as those in town centres and others which are, or will be, close to major transport interchanges and allocate or reallocate sites which are (or will be) highly accessible by public transport for travel intensive uses (including offices, retail, commercial leisure, hospitals and conference facilities).

7. Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) (Development and Flood Risk) states that the aims of planning policy on development and flood risk are to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development

DC® BOARD 23/04/2009 9 2009/0157/03 – continued

away from areas at highest risk. Where new development is, exceptionally, necessary in such areas, policy aims to make it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere and where possible, reducing flood risk overall.

Regional Planning Guidance

8. The East Midlands Regional Plan (EMRP) was adopted in March 2009 and sets out the regional guidance for development in the East Midlands. One of the regional core objectives is to improve accessibility to jobs, homes and services through: • promotion and integration of opportunities for walking and cycling; • promotion of the use of high quality public transport; and • encouragement of patterns of new development that reduce the need to travel especially by car.

9. Policy 3 lists the priorities for the distribution of new development and sets out a broad hierarchy of settlements in terms of Principal Urban Areas, Growth Towns, and Sub-Regional Centres (which includes Market Harborough). The development needs of other settlements and rural areas should also be provided for. New development in these areas should contribute to: • maintaining the distinctive character and vitality of rural communities; • shortening journeys and facilitating access to jobs and services; • strengthening rural enterprise and linkages between settlements and their hinterlands; and • respecting the quality of tranquillity, where that is recognised in planning documents;

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

10. Policy 12 sets out the priorities for development within the Three Cities Sub-Area. It states development should support the continued growth and regeneration of Derby, Leicester and Nottingham, and maintain and strengthen the economic, commercial and cultural roles of all three cities. This will be achieved by ensuring that the agreed Growth Point Programme of Delivery for the 3 Cities and 3 Counties is achieved both in overall numbers of dwellings and in the agreed phasing of development. Outside Derby, Leicester and Nottingham, employment and housing development should be located within and adjoining settlements. Such development should be in scale with the size of those settlements, in locations that respect environmental constraints.

11. Policy 13a requires that from 2006, 350 dwellings per year are provided within Harborough District. This equates to 7,000 dwellings over the plan period (until 2026). Policy 14 requires that 33% of houses built in the Leicester and Leicestershire HMA are affordable.

12. Policy 26 states that sustainable development should ensure the protection, appropriate management and enhancement of the Region’s natural and cultural

DC® BOARD 23/04/2009 10 2009/0157/03 – continued

heritage, and lists principles relating to avoiding damage where possible, minimising avoidable damage and, compensation where unavoidable damage cannot be mitigated.

13. Policy 35 states that development should not be permitted if, alone or in conjunction with other new development, it would: • be at unacceptable risk from flooding or create such an unacceptable risk elsewhere; • inhibit the capacity of the floodplain to store water; • impede the flow of floodwater in a way which would create an unacceptable risk elsewhere; • have a detrimental impact upon infiltration of rainfall to ground water storage; • otherwise unacceptably increase flood risk.

However, such development may be acceptable on the basis of conditions or agreements for adequate measures to mitigate the effects on the overall flooding regime.

14. Policy 43 lists objectives for transport infrastructure which include: • to support sustainable development in the Region’s Principal Urban Areas; • to improve air quality and reduce carbon emissions from transport by reducing the need to travel and promoting modal shift away from the private car, (particularly towards walking, cycling and public transport and away from other road based transport) and encouraging and supporting innovative transport technologies.

15. Policy 45 states that the development of transport infrastructure and services across the Region should be consistent with the following Objectives: • to promote accessibility and overcome peripherality in the Region’s rural areas; • to reduce traffic growth across the Region; and • to improve air quality and reduce carbon emissions from transport by reducing the need to travel and promoting modal shift away from the private car, (particularly towards walking, cycling and public transport and away from other road based transport) and encouraging and supporting innovative transport technologies.

Local Plan considerations

16. Policy RM/2 states that planning permission will be refused for development which would be at risk of flooding or would materially increase flood risk, unless measures are implemented on or off site to counteract the increased flood risk.

17. Policy EV/5 states that development in the Countryside will be strictly controlled. The District Council will refuse planning permission unless: • Development is likely to sustain or improve the rural economy and cannot reasonably be provided within or adjacent to an existing settlement; • The development does not adversely effect the character and appearance • of the Countryside; • The development does not adversely effect the amenities of the residents in the area;

DC® BOARD 23/04/2009 11 2009/0157/03 – continued

• Any new buildings are in a position that minimises their impact on the landscape and important views into and out of villages. The design, materials, massing and bulk of any buildings should combine to minimise the impact on the character and appearance of the Countryside and should maintain or enhance the distinctive local character of the landscape and the built environment; • The development is accompanied by a landscape scheme appropriate to its siting and location; • The development does not adversely affect areas of ecological or archaeological significance; • Satisfactory access can be provided without adversely affecting the character and appearance of the area; • There is capacity on the local road network to accommodate the traffic likely to be generated by the development. • Adequate provision is made in the site for parking and servicing; • The development does not contribute to the coalescence of two close settlements or diminish the open character of the land between them.

18. Policy HS/4 states that the Council has identified the need for up to 1,200 affordable houses to the end of the plan period (2006). Policy HS/5 states that the District Council will exceptionally grant permission for affordable housing schemes to meet local needs within or adjacent to settlements where certain criteria are met.

19. Policy TR/3 states that planning permission will be refused for new development where the traffic flow generated would create a substantial effect on the existing road network unless satisfactory and environmentally acceptable improvements can be implemented to alleviate impacts of the development.

Harborough District Local Development Framework

20. Harborough District Council is at an early stage in the production of its LDF. Consultation took place on its Preferred Options for its Core Strategy in April 2006. In light of changing National Guidance, consultation responses and advice from Government Office for the East Midlands, Harborough District Council opted to produce a second Preferred Options paper as part of the Core Strategy preparation. This paper was expected to be published for consultation in 2008. However, this has been delayed.

21. The District Council’s 2007/8 Annual Monitoring Report explains that the reason is the submission of an eco-town bid by the Co-operative Group to Central Government. Given the scale and potential implications of the development proposed, a decision was taken to delay publication and consultation on the preferred options for the Core Strategy. Further consultation on the Core Strategy has been delayed in order to explore the potential implications of the ecotown proposal upon the future spatial strategy for the District and to seek advice from Government on how best to proceed given the present uncertainties created by the proposal and separate Government process for appraising the eco-town bids. ______

DC® BOARD 23/04/2009 12 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD

The considerations set out below apply to all preceding applications.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS

Unless otherwise stated in the report there are no discernible equal opportunities implications.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DISABLED PERSONS

On all educational proposals the Director of Children’s Services and the Director of Resources will be informed as follows:

Note to Applicant Department

Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Person’s Act 1970, the Design Note 18 “Access for the Disabled People to Educational Buildings” 1984 and to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. You are advised to contact the County Council’s Assistant Personnel Officer (Disabled People) if you require further advice on this aspect of the proposal.

COMMUNITY SAFETY IMPLICATIONS

Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a very broad duty on all local authorities 'to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area'. Unless otherwise stated in the report, there are no discernible implications for crime reduction or community safety.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Unless otherwise stated in the report the background papers used in the preparation of this report are available on the relevant planning application files.

SECTION 38(6) OF PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT 2004

Members are reminded that Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act requires that:

“If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”

Any relevant provisions of the development plan (i.e. the Regional Spatial Strategy, Structure Plan or any approved Local Plans) are identified in the individual reports.

The circumstances in which the Board is required to “have regard” to the development plan are given in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990:

Section 70(2) : determination of applications; Section 77(4) : called-in applications (applying s. 70); Section 79(4) : planning appeals (applying s. 70); Section 81(3) : provisions relating to compensation directions by Secretary of State (this section is repealed by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991); Section 91(2) : power to vary period in statutory condition requiring development to be begun; Section 92(6) : power to vary applicable period for outline planning permission; Section 97(2) : revocation or modification of planning permission; Section 102(1) : discontinuance orders; Section 172(1) : enforcement notices; Section 177(2) : Secretary of State’s power to grant planning permission on enforcement appeal; Section 226(2) : compulsory acquisition of land for planning purposes; Section 294(3) : special enforcement notices in relation to Crown land; Sched. 9 para (1) : minerals discontinuance orders.

DC® BOARD 23/04/2009