TH REPORT TO CABINET – 11 NOVEMBER 2003
JOINT REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES AND DIRECTOR OF HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORTATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
HALLAM LAND MANAGEMENT – ERECTION OF 340 DWELLINGS AND ASSOCIATED OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING AND SURFACE WATER BALANCING AND NEW ACCESS ROAD TO THE RIDGEMERE CENTRE, LAND TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF BARKBY ROAD, SYSTON (CHARNWOOD BOROUGH)
2001/2462/02 – Received by L.C.C. on 26th October 2001
Purpose of Report
1. The purpose of this report is to obtain Members responses on a major new housing proposal at Syston, which is the subject of consultation with the County Council. A threefold response to the Borough Council is required, setting out County Council’s views as:
(i) strategic planning authority ; in accordance with the procedures set out in Para 1 of the Schedule to the Town and country Planning Act 1990; (ii) highway authority, under the provisions of Article 10 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedures) Order; and (iii) service provider for the various County Council functions, in the context of the supplementary planning guidance on ‘Requirements for Developer Contributions’ adopted by the County Council in 2001.
2. The report also provides the opportunity to update Members on the circumstances relating to this development proposal since it was considered by the Regulatory Board at its meeting in December 2001. It sets out the progress made towards the adoption of the Local Plan and the status of the application site within that document, insofar as they impact on the decisions of the County Council. Also, it highlights any changes in the actual proposal itself, since the previous consideration by the Regulatory Board.
3. Part B of this report provides an amended version of the original report to the Development Control and Regulatory Board and sets out details of the proposal, the relevant policy considerations in Appendix A (including the latest changes in the Draft Local Plan), and an assessment of the material planning considerations. This forms the basis of the recommended response of the County Council as strategic planning authority and in regard of the request for 2
developer contributions towards County Council service facilities and infrastructure provision. A separate Appendix B is attached that deals specifically with the highways and transportation issues surrounding the proposal, including an assessment of the relevant matters that leads to a recommended response to the statutory consultation with the County Council as Highway Authority.
Recommendations
A. Response of the County Planning Authority:
4. Charnwood Borough Council be advised that:-
The County Planning Authority (CPA) has no strategic planning objections to the proposals, in the context of national policy guidance, approved Structure Plan policies, the Borough-wide Local Plan (as modified) and the Inspectors’ report on the local plan inquiry. The proposed development would provide for a significant proportion of strategic housing requirements in the Borough Council area up to 2006, and additional capacity towards future housing requirements in the Replacement Structure Plan up to 2016.
5. The CPA’s support for the development is subject to the following requirements being secured through appropriate legal agreement, conditions and negotiation with the applicant:-
(i) provision of appropriate off-site highway improvements and traffic management measures, details of which shall be confirmed by the County Highways Authority, to support the development. Such measures should be made available in accordance with a phased programme of provision, also to be agreed between the Borough Council and the County Highways Authority.
(ii) provision of appropriate measures to secure improved transport choice facilities into and within the development, including a viable public transport service and specified pedestrian and cycleway links;
(iii) delivery of a mixed housing development at a minimum density of 30 dwellings/ha (net), including appropriate levels of affordable and social housing provision, being secured within the development;
(iv) developer contributions being secured towards the provision of community facilities and infrastructure requirements arising from the development, including provision for additional school places generated by the development. The scale and phasing of such contributions is to be negotiated and secured by the prior completion of a legal agreement with the developer. The County Council seeks the continued opportunity to be involved in negotiations and the terms of the legal agreement.
3
B. Response of the County Highways Authority:
6. Charnwood Borough Council be advised that, notwithstanding the views of the Local Plan Inspector, the County Highway Authority (CHA) has serious doubts about the effectiveness of the proposed transportation improvements (as set out in the applicant’s revised submissions). Nevertheless, given that the package of improvements are broadly based on those outlined at the earlier Local Plan Inquiry and the Inspector’s acceptance of these type of measures, on balance it is unlikely that a fundamental highway objection could reasonably be sustained.
7. If the Borough Council is minded to approve the application, it is recommended that the Director of Highways, Transportation, and Waste Management be given delegated authority to negotiate the terms of the transportation elements of any Section 106 Agreement, to safeguard the CHA’s interest and subsequently submit a further report to the Cabinet seeking approval to the highway elements of the legal agreement.
C. Response on Developer Contributions:
8. It is recommended that the Borough Council be advised that the following items should be secured through appropriate Section 106 legal agreements and/or conditions of any planning permissions:
(i) the implementation of highway improvements and traffic management measures, details of which shall be agreed by the County Highway Authority; (ii) An appropriate sum (yet to be agreed) towards the extension and improvement of bus service into the development site; (iii) An appropriate sum (yet to be agreed) towards cycleway network and pedestrian links in the area; (iv) £673,341 towards the cost of additional secondary education facilities in the locality, being the appropriate calculation for such requirement, based on the latest up-to-date Department for Education and Science (DfES) cost-multipliers for 11-16 year olds and 16+ year group; (v) Further discussions are necessary to secure the payment profile of the education contribution, depending on the phasing of the proposed new development; (vi) In the event of funds becoming available for additional community based facilities at County Council premises from the contributions offered towards community/recreation facilities, the Education Authority is willing to be involved in negotiations on the type, location, and costs of such facilities; (vii) £10,000 towards the provision of additional library facilities (stock and ICT installations) at Syston Library (payable to the County Council, not the BC as implied in the draft ‘heads of terms’); (viii) £6,000 towards the cost of enhanced civic amenity site facilities in the Charnwood area (payable to the County Council, not the BC as implied in the draft ‘heads of terms’). 4
9. The County Council wishes to remain involved in the finalisation of terms within the Section 106 legal agreement, especially in the context of items (i) - (vi) above. All figures should be index linked to account for price inflation. (It is recommended that officers of the relevant departments be given delegated authority to negotiate the precise terms of the Agreement, based on the above resolution).
Reasons for Recommendation
10. The submitted planning application (as revised) provides for a major housing development on the east side of Syston that has significant implications for the fulfilment of strategic housing requirements in the approved Structure Plan (up to 2006). It also has associated implications for the provision of transportation and community/service facilities in the locality. It is essential that, in the event of planning permission being granted for the development, appropriate solutions and/or contributions be secured towards the following:
(i) public transport measures/contributions and cycleway initiatives to meet the County Council’s sustainability objectives and assist in the provision of transport choice; (ii) highway improvements and traffic management measures to mitigate the impact of traffic generated by the development; (iii) additional educational facilities to accommodate the needs of additional pupils arising from the development; (iv) community facilities, including the additional demands placed on the local library and civic amenity provision for the locality; (v) safeguarding and improvements to the rights of way network.
Timetable For Decisions
11. Charnwood Borough Council intends to consider its decision on the submitted planning application and related legal agreement at its meeting on 27h November. The County Council’s response is required in time for this meeting, so that the contents and implications can be taken fully into account in the determination process.
12. Until such time as the Borough Council is able to determine this application, it seems likely that the applicant’s legal challenge to the Council’s decisions on other housing allocations in the Borough will remain extant. This situation has an adverse impact on progress towards essential housing provision within the Borough and could seriously prejudice the fulfilment of the Council’s housing strategy. An early decision on the Barkby Road site appears to be critical to resolving this situation.
Policy Framework and Previous Decisions
13. The County Council has considered the Deposit Draft Local Plan for Charnwood Borough – including Proposed Changes, Modifications and Further Modifications - on various occasions between 1996 and 2003, as both strategic planning and highway authority. At the Cabinet meeting on 3rd July 2001, it 5
considered its response to the Proposed Modifications to the Plan. Subsequently, the Cabinet considered its response to the proposed Further Modifications of the Plan at the meeting on 25th February 2003.
14. The Borough Council’s Additional Further Modifications are currently the subject of consultation with the County Council, and a formal response will be made by the end of the consultation period (i.e. 7th November). The matter is likely to be considered by the Cabinet at the same meeting on 11th November 2003.
15. It respect of the allocation of land at the Barkby Road site, the County Council originally lodged an objection to the inclusion of this site in the Plan at the Deposit stage (1996), because:
(i) (as County Planning Authority) the site did not provide for an appropriate level of transport choice, as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum of the approved Structure Plan; and (ii) (as County highway Authority) the local highway network could not accommodate the additional traffic from the development.
16. The Inspectors considered these objections at the original local Plan inquiry, having concluded that the proposed residential development would conform to the locational objectives of the Structure Plan and – subject to improved bus access – provide satisfactory transport choice. They also found that, subject to a package of traffic management measures in the locality to mitigate the traffic impact, there is no overriding case to reject the proposal on highway grounds.
17. In the light of the Inspectors’ findings, and proposed modifications to the relevant Policy H/1(q) of the Local Plan, the Cabinet resolved to withdraw its previous holding objection to this housing allocation on 3rd July 2001 (i.e. when it considered the Proposed Modifications to the Plan).
18. Consequently, when this planning application was considered by the Development Control and Regulatory Board at its meeting on 13th December 2001, it was minded to recommend to the Cabinet that there be no strategic planning objections to the proposal. This recommendation was subject to the following requirements being secured through appropriate legal agreement, conditions and negotiation with the developer:
(i) provision of appropriate off-site highway improvements and traffic management measures;; (ii) provision of appropriate measures to secure improved transport choice facilities; (iii) delivery of a mixed housing development, including affordable and social housing provision; (iv) an overall average net density of at least 30 dwellings/ha; (v) developer contributions towards the provision of community facilities and infrastructure requirements.
6
Resource Implications
19. The terms of the legal agreement incorporate significant contributions towards County Council services and infrastructure.
20. It is anticipated that the proposed contributions will be largely sufficient to fund the capital cost of the facilities without significant contributions from the County Council.
21. The Director of Resources has been consulted on the resource implications section of the report.
Circulation Under Sensitive Issues Procedures
Mr. R. Jenkins CC
Officers to Contact
Mr. C. J. Noakes (Tel. 265 7053) Mr. A. Headley (Tel. 265 7187) Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
7
PART B
Background
22. The County Planning Authority (CPA) has been consulted on this application to determine its views as strategic planning authority in the context of its previous representations on the Borough-wide Local Plan and relevant Government advice. These are set out in the appropriate sections below. At the same time, the County Council has been consulted separately on the nature of any community and infrastructure requirements that arise from the development (including roadworks and transportation issues).
23. The report provides the opportunity to update Members on the circumstances relating to this development proposal since it was considered by the Regulatory Board at its meeting in December 2001. It sets out the progress made towards the adoption of the Local Plan and the status of the application site within that document, insofar as they impact on the decisions of the County Council. Also, it highlights any changes in the actual proposal itself, since the previous consideration by the Regulatory Board.
24. Since it was first submitted in October 2001 and considered by the Board, the proposal has been amended to provide for 340 dwellings in total. It is now accompanied by additional supporting evidence in the form of a number of separate documents, namely:
(i) design statement that establishes the design principles fro the development; (ii) structural landscape framework; (iii) preliminary land contamination assessment; (iv) air quality assessment; (v) noise assessment, particularly in relation to the nearby Ridgemere Centre; (vi) flood risk assessment of the impact on Barkby Brook, in accordance with the guidance in PPG 25; (vii) archaeological assessment of the application site; (viii) ecological appraisal of the site; and (ix) transport plan that sets out the developer’s intentions for encouraging travel by a variety of transport modes;
25. The agent has now submitted ‘draft heads of terms’ for a legal agreement between the developer and the local authorities. The Borough Council intends to consider these ‘terms’ as part of its decision on the planning application, at its meeting on 27th November 2003.
Planning history
26. The Barkby Road site was included in the Deposit Local Plan for Charnwood as one of a number of strategic ‘greenfield’ development sites in the larger settlements in the Borough. This allocation was the source of a significant number of objections to the 1998 Local Plan Inquiry, at which detailed consideration was given to all elements of the proposed development. Many of these objections have been rehearsed in response to the current application, and the original findings on these matters are reported below (Inspectors’ report). 8
27. The Ridgemere Centre on the east side of the application site (and included in the original Local Plan allocation) was first erected as an equestrian centre in the 1980’s. Since that time, it has been used for caravan sales, exhibition centre and (following an appeal in 1997) a storage and distribution centre. There are specific controls over the types and times of activities carried out from the premises.
The Proposed Development
28. The application site is located to the east of Syston, immediately adjoining the existing edge of the built up area on either side of Barkby Road. There is modern housing development extending along the west boundary of the site on both sides of the road, built in the mid- 1980’s (north) and 1990’s (south side). Most of the site is flat, open arable fields, apart from the nursery site at the eastern end of the Barkby Road frontage.
29. The large building of the Ridgemere Centre, with its independent access and service yard, is surrounded by the site on its eastern side. It is intended to relocate the existing access road along the eastern edge of the new development. This plot will remain in separate commercial use on the edge of the built up area.
30. The whole site amounts to some 13.3ha, of which 3ha are situated to the south of Barkby Road. The submitted scheme provides for the erection of 69 dwellings on the southern portion and 271 dwellings on the north side of the Road (net density of about 31.9 dwellings/ha, excluding structural landscape belt around the periphery of the two sites).
31. Both residential areas would be served by a series of estate roads linked to a new roundabout junction on Barkby Road itself. The development would provide for a mixture of small, medium and large housing types, set within the structural landscape framework and incorporating open space facilities, footpath routes and cycleway links to the adjoining development in Syston.
32. The proposed roundabout junction is located about 800m south-east of the town centre (Barkby Road/Melton Road junction). Barkby Road continues eastwards for a further 500m to the T-junction with Queniborough Road. The submitted transport plan includes provision (inter alia) for the diversion of existing bus route into the development site
Planning Policy Framework
33. National Planning Policy Guidance relevant to the application is set out in PPG1 – General Policy and Principles; PPG3 – Housing; PPG13 – Transport; PPG25 – Development and Flood Risk; Regional Planning Guidance for the East Midlands (RPG8) was issued in January 2002. The Development Plan in this instance is made up of the Leicestershire Structure Plan (1994). Consideration also needs to be given to the emerging policies of the deposit draft Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Structure Plan (May 2000) as proposed to be modified and the Draft Charnwood Local Plan as proposed to be modified. 9
34. The relevant policies in each of these documents are set out in Appendix A.
Developer Contribution Procedures
35. In accordance with the protocol established between the County and District Planning authorities, the Borough Council has consulted the County Council on the nature and extent of developer contributions that it is seeking to secure against the development (as amended). The individual service departments have set out the following requests for contributions, based on an up-dated assessment of the revised proposal:
• a package of highway and transportation facilities and improvements specified (details of which have yet to be agreed – see para 34 of Appendix B which deals with Highways and Transportation issues); • £320,421 towards the cost of additional secondary facilities at Roundhill Community College; • £352,920 towards the cost of additional secondary facilities at Wreake Valley College; • £10,000 towards additional Library facilities (stock and ICT installations) at Syston Library; • £6,000 towards the cost of enhanced civic amenity facilities in the Charnwood area; • links between the development and the existing rights of way network (public footpaths J17 and J37 cross the site) and safeguarding and/or diversion of these routes, • planting of structural landscape areas and future management plans for these, including ecological conservation and enhancement.
36. The Borough Council has set out separately it requirements of the developer, including such matters as open space, playing fields, recreation facilities, environmental improvements, affordable housing, and landscaping.
Draft Heads of Terms
37. The agent for this proposal has been in consultation with the various service departments of the County and Borough Councils and, as part of the revised submission, has set out details of the applicant’s ‘offer’ of contributions in a draft heads of agreement (Section 106). These contributions have regard to the findings in the original Inspectors’ report and the subsequent modification of Policy H1(q) that relates to this allocation (see para. 34 of Appendix A).
38. Insofar as the agreement relates to the cost of transportation improvements, the developer is willing to pay for the following highway improvement works: • improvement to the Barkby Road/Queniborough Road junction; • traffic calming works (speed table and parking areas) at the junction of Main Street/Queniborough Road in Barkby; • traffic calming (chicanes) along Barkby Road, between the site entrance and Melton Road (centre of Syston); • traffic signals with pedestrian facilities at the Melton Road/Barkby Road junction in the centre of Syston; and • mini-roundabout at the junction of Barkby Road/Queniborough Road in Queniborough village. 10
39. The developer is prepared to also contribute £5,000 towards improved off-site cycling facilities and £25,000 towards the provision of extended bus services into the site and/or bus shelters on the existing route.
40. In regard to education requirements, the developer is willing to provide £330.064 towards the cost of primary school facilities and £78,813 in respect of secondary school facilities in the locality.
41. The following contributions are also offered towards social/community facilities in the locality:
(County Council services) (i) £6,000 towards civic amenity facilities in the Charnwood locality; (ii) £10,000 towards stock and equipment at the local library/local school libraries.
(County or Borough Council services) (iii) £100,000 towards community/recreation facilities in the locality, being used towards any or all of the following: • fitness suite at South Charnwood Leisure Centre; • multi-use playing pitch at Wreake Valley College; • meeting room at the Community Centre or Primary School; • cemetery/allotment land (Syston Town Council) • accommodation for local age concern group.
(Borough Council services) (iv) provision and maintenance of open space with the development area; (v) 50 ‘affordable’ housing units (10 for sale and 40 for rent); (vi) £50,000 contributions towards environmental improvements in the locality;
Assessment
Strategic Planning Issues
42. In locational terms, the development proposals accord with the general objectives of national, regional, and strategic planning policies. These seek to direct the majority of new development to existing built-up areas, where a choice of transport is available. Although the CPA previously expressed concerns about the accessibility of the site to alternative forms of transport, these have been addressed by modifications to the relevant local plan policy.
43. Whilst the site is not ideally located within 1km of the railway station, it can be made convenient for bus services, pedestrian and cyclists. Improved bus penetration will be necessary, as negotiable through the terms of the Local Plan policy. The Local Plan Inspectors have confirmed this position in their detailed assessment of the proposals; on balance, there is no preferable location to meet housing needs in the Wreake Valley area. 11
44. The development involves significant ‘greenfield’ development, rather than the preferred re-use of vacant, ‘brown’ land. Notwithstanding the introduction of the ‘sequential’ test for new housing allocations in revised PPG3 and the emerging Structure Plan, the loss of some greenfield land is unavoidable, if the strategic housing requirements for Charnwood Borough are to be fulfilled. The issue of preferred housing allocations has now been thoroughly examined through the Local Plan process, including the fresh assessment of land availability and a sequential approach at the latest Additional Modifications.
45. Given the advanced stage of the Draft Local Plan and the Inspectors’ findings on the Barkby Road proposals, the development is not considered to be premature. Subject to the recommended changes to the Deposit Plan – modified Policy H/(q) – the development should proceed.
46. The submitted application provides for a net density of development of over 30 dwellings/ha.. The increased density of development is to be welcomed in the context of latest Government guidance (PPG3) and existing and emerging Structure Plan policies. It also assists in securing a wider range of housing types including ‘social’ housing provision within the development.
47. The issue of traffic on the local highway network has been extensively explored and assessed through the Local Plan inquiry. Notwithstanding the concerns of the County Highway Authority, the draft allocation has been supported by the Inspectors, subject to traffic management measures and improved bus services being negotiated with the developer.
48. On this basis, the allocation was confirmed through the Proposed Modifications of the Local Plan, to which the County Council raised no objection at the time. Indeed, it has not been the subject of any further alteration since that stage, either at the Further Modification or Additional Modification stages of consultation. The precise details of any highways and transportation facilities need to be the subject of continuing negotiation between the County Council and the developer, in the context of the modified Policy H/1(q).
Developer Contributions
49. It is essential that the infrastructure and community facilities arising from this major development be secured by appropriate developer contributions. The Inspectors confirm the acceptability, and indeed requisite nature, of such contributions. Various requirements are the subject of the revised Local Plan Policy H/1(q), whilst others are identified as subject to negotiation.
50. Those elements of the package of developer contributions that relate to County Council services and infrastructure need to be assessed, to determine the appropriateness of the ‘offer’ and any subsequent implications for service delivery. These are dealt with below by reference to each service department.
12
Highways and Transportation Facilities
51. The details of any appropriate highway improvements and traffic calming will have to be the subject of further discussion and negotiation. It is considered that the package of improvements offered by the developer will not satisfactorily address the consequences of additional traffic on the local highway network.
52. The contributions of £25,000 offered towards improved bus and £5,000 towards cycleway improvements require further examination and clarification. These figures need to be the subject of further negotiations with the developer.
Education Facilities
53. At the time when this planning application was submitted (October 2001) a figure of £408,877 was established as the appropriate level of contributions towards additional secondary education facilities in the locality. There was no requirement for contributions towards primary education, because of existing spare capacity in this sector. This figure was based of the DfES cost-multiplier for 2001/2 of £6,736 (11-16 yr group) and £8,757 (16+yr group).
54. The developer now offers this same total figure, but weighted specifically in favour of payment towards primary education facilities (£330,064) as opposed to secondary facilities (£78,813). This distribution of funds is still inappropriate, as surplus capacity remains in the primary sector in the local catchment schools.
55. However, cost-multipliers for 2003/4 have increased substantially, due to the increase in construction costs and an increase in DfES guidelines for the requirements for accommodation per pupil place. The new multipliers are £11,049 (11-16yr group) and £14,660 (16+yr group). On this basis a revised, up-to-date contribution of £673,341 is sought towards education facilities, divided between Roundhill Community College (£320,421) and Wreake Valley College (£352,920). The payment profile of the education contribution needs to be the subject of further discussion, depending on the phasing of the proposed residential development.
56. There is a possibility that all or part of the £100,000 being offered towards community/recreation facilities could be used to fund additional facilities at either Wreake Valley Community College campus (multi-use pitch or fitness suite), or Merton Primary School (meeting room). However, the use of this contribution will need to be subject to further negotiation between the various ‘community’ service agencies in Syston, including the Borough, Parish and voluntary groups. In the circumstances, it would be pertinent to agree to the inclusion of County officers in securing any terms of the agreement that relate to County Council premises.
Civic Amenity Site Facilities
57. The offer towards Civic Amenity Site facilities fulfils the request for additional funds, being a reasonable contribution on the basis of the needs of the additional population arising from the development.
13
Library Services
58. Similarly, the offer towards the Library service fulfils the request for additional funds, being a reasonable contribution on the basis of the needs of the additional population arising from the development.
59. Other items identified by the County’s service departments are covered by the provision of structural landscaping and footpaths links that are incorporated in the development scheme. These are the subject of contributions to the Borough Council for open space and landscaping works within the site.
Equal Opportunities Implications
60. There are no discernible equal opportunities implications.
Conclusions
61. In the circumstances, it is recommended that the Cabinet (acting in its capacity as County Planning Authority) raises no strategic planning objection to the proposal, subject to the provisions set out in paragraph 6 of this report.
62. In the context of the various comments set out above, some amendments are required to the draft ‘heads of terms’, insofar as these relate to County Council services and infrastructure facilities. Further discussions are required on the details of the highway/transportation package and the timescale for payment of education contributions. It is recommended that the Cabinet respond to the Borough council in the terms set out in paragraphs 10 and 11 of this report.
Background Papers
Deposit Local Plan for Charnwood Borough (including Proposed Changes, Further Proposed Changes, Inspectors’ Report and Proposed Modifications, 2nd Inspector’s Report; Proposed Further Modifications; Proposed Additional Modifications).
Planning Application No. 2001/2462/2
Report of the Development Control and Regulatory Board 13th December 2001
14
APPENDIX A: PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
National Policy Guidance
1. Planning Policy Guidance Note 1 (PPG1) deals with General Policy and Principles. It includes advice on the primacy of the development plan in the determination of planning proposals, in the context of Section 54A of the 1990 Act. The relative advantages and disadvantages of various development options should be properly considered in a comprehensive manner through the Local Plan process. It sets out the Government’s advice on prematurity and provides that development proposals should not be determined in advance of the formal local plan process, unless it would not prejudice the likely intentions of the plan.
2. Major developments should be in locations well served by public transport and be properly integrated, in terms of land use and design, with the surrounding area. There is emphasis on the provision of mixed used developments. Development proposals should make provision for trips by alternative means of transport, including foot and cycle journeys. The guidance also emphasises the value of good design, as a means of improving the quality of the environment and benefiting the public good.
3. With respect to housing development, the development plan should identify an adequate and continuous supply of land to meet future requirements, including provision for a mixture and range of housing types. Again, the emphasis is on maximising the re-use of land within urban areas, where public transport and other facilities are readily available.
4. PPG3 (Housing) was revised in March 2000 and sets out the Government’s intention to provide for the housing needs of the whole community, including those in need of affordable or special homes, through greater choice. It is intended that existing towns and cities be the focus for new housing development. Priority should be given to the re-use of previously-developed land within these areas, in preference to greenfield sites.
5. The guidance promotes more sustainable patterns of development, accessible by alternative means of transport and linked to community facilities and services. It also emphasises the importance of good design, balanced/mixed housing areas and mixed-use developments. Housing densities which makes inefficient use of land should be avoided (i.e. less than 30 dwellings/ha), and more intensive housing development should be achieved along public transport corridors.
6. A sufficient and continuous supply of housing land should be provided to meet housing requirements, delivered through the development plan system. The latest PPG on Housing introduces a ‘sequential’ approach to the allocation of new housing land, based on an assessment of the housing capacity of existing urban areas. It identifies a number of sustainable criteria against which to assess the suitability of housing sites (e.g. location and access to jobs/services and public transport facilities). 15
7. PPG 13 (Transport) was published in March 2001 and 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.
8. PPG25 (Development and Flood Risk) was published in July 2001 and sets out the Government’s latest advice on flooding issues and the development process. A small portion of the Southern Section of the application site falls within the defined flood plain of the Barkby Brook (along with much of the existing built-up area). Charnwood Borough Council have consulted the Environment Agency as required by the advice and there is no objection to the proposal on grounds of flooding.
9. Circular 1/97 contains the Government’s advice on the planning obligations and the relevance of developer contributions arising from development proposals. Developers are expected to meet the cost of infrastructure and community facilities arising from new developments, but these must be directly related to the proposal in question. They can be used to overcome a genuine shortfall in provision, if the development would otherwise be acceptable in planning policy terms, but cannot be taken to overcome proper planning objections.
Regional Planning Guidance
10. RPG8 was agreed in January 2002 and sets out the regional guidance for development in the East Midlands and applies the general principles for sustainable development in national guidance. Most new development should be directed to locations in and adjoining existing built-up areas and the fullest use should be made of vacant and underused (brown) urban land in preference to greenfield sites.
Strategic Policy Considerations
11. The approved Structure Plan for Leicestershire sets out the overall strategy for development in the County between 1991 - 2006. Strategy Policy 1 sets out the overall intentions for development and provides that (inter alia):
• most new development is located where a realistic choice of transport is or will be available; • a continuous supply of housing land is available to meet the needs of the County; • development is carried out at as a high a density as appropriate; and • a mix and balance of housing and compatible employment uses be provided in each locality;
12. Strategy Policies 2 and 3 provide that major new development should be allocated within and adjoining urban areas and in locations which offer a choice of transport along specified corridors. In the Borough area, this includes sites adjoining the urban areas of Leicester, Loughborough and Shepshed, along the Leicester-Loughborough and Leicester-Melton railway lines, and the A6 Leicester -Loughborough public transport corridor. 16
13. Strategy Policy 5 states that major new housing and employment development should meet most or all of the requirements and/or costs for infrastructure arising from the development (e.g. public services, public transport, off site works and community facilities). Contributions will be expected from developers towards these costs.
14. Environment Policy 1 states that measures will be taken to maintain and improve the built environment, including steps to ensure a high quality of design and landscaping.
15. Transport Policy 4 states that planning permission will not be granted for development if it leads to traffic generation which will have an adverse effect on the road system or highway safety, or has unacceptable environmental consequences.
16. Transport Policy 7 makes provision for the improvement of bus services in connection with new development proposals. Major development is expected to incorporate accessibility to appropriate bus facilities. Transport Policy 9 requires provision of adequate, convenient and safe pedestrian and cycling facilities within new developments, with segregated routes linking residential areas with community facilities and the countryside.
Housing Provision
17. Housing Policy 1 provides for about 8350 new dwellings to be built in Charnwood Borough between 1991-2006, of which some 7800 dwellings were either built or committed for development as at March 2003 (including an allowance for small sites). The Borough Council has calculated that a further 100 dwellings can be built on previously developed land during the remainder of the Plan period (i.e. increased ‘urban capacity’). The outstanding balance of 450 dwellings needs to be met by the allocation of additional residential sites, including greenfield sites.
18. The latest Additional Modifications of the Deposit Local Plan provides for this outstanding balance in the form of allocations of both ‘brown’ land (100 units) and greenfield sites at Anstey, Barrow-upon-Soar, Burton-on-the-Wolds, Loughborough, Shepshed, Syston and Wymeswold. Many of these sites are currently the subject of outstanding planning applications, including the application that is the subject of this report.
19. Housing Policy 5 states that development will normally be at as high a density as is compatible with the nature of a particular site and its setting. Average densities should reflect the growing needs of households requiring smaller dwelling
20. Housing Policy 6 requires that major developments should offer a range of and mix of housing types and make provision for access housing, again including the growing need for households requiring smaller dwellings. 17
21. The Draft Replacement Structure Plan (1996-2016) has reached the stage where the three planning authorities have now decided on their response to the representations made on the Proposed Modifications and published formal notice of their intention to adopt the Plan July 2003). The objectives of the Plan seek to promote a sustainable form of development by integrating social, environmental, economic and resource objectives, including patterns of development that (inter alia) minimise the need to travel.
22. The locational policies of the Plan (as set out in revised Strategy Policies 2A and 2B) provide for the vast majority of new development to be concentrated within and adjoining the main urban areas. A sequential approach is set out, whereby priority is given to development in and around the urban centres, with an emphasis on those locations well served by alternative forms of transport. Priority is given to the use of ‘previously developed land and buildings’ within these locations.
23. Strategy Policy 3 states that where, after applying the sequential approach in Strategy Policy 2A and the criteria in Strategy Policy 2B, it is necessary to consider new development on greenfield land, such land should generally be identified as urban extensions and allocated for development in local plans
24. Strategy Policy 11 of the Plan re-iterates and clarifies the objective of the approved Structure Plan in regard of developer contributions. It states that developers should meet the requirements for, and costs of, relevant infrastructure and facilities and other resources required to support the development. A comprehensive assessment of these requirements will be made
25. The Replacement Plan (as modified) provides for some 9,400 new dwellings in Charnwood Borough during the Plan period, of which some 6455 are committed for development as at March 2002 (i.e. either built or allocated for development in the Draft Local Plan). It is estimated that a further 2115 dwellings can be provided through existing ‘urban capacity’ or on ‘small sites’. The outstanding requirement for 830 dwellings will need to be provided on ‘greenfield’ sites in the remaining period to 2016.
26. These calculations of future housing land requirements in the Replacement Plan period to 2016 assume that 340 homes will be built within the completed Barkby Road development as a ‘commitment’ within the current Local Plan (2006). Without the development of the application site, the housing requirements for Charnwood Borough up to 2016 would depend on alternative greenfield allocations for this number of homes
27. Housing Policy 5 seeks to achieve as high a density as possible for new housing development, taking into account relevant considerations. It is intended that sites within the main town centres and other highly accessible locations should achieve a minimum of 40 dwellings/hectare, whilst all sites should attain a minimum of 30 dwellings/hectare. 18
Local Plan considerations
28. The Draft Local Plan for Charnwood was placed on deposit in June 1996 and was the subject of an extensive public inquiry (Spring - Summer 1998). In response to objections and in advance of the public inquiry, the Borough Council published its Proposed Changes and Proposed Further Changes to the Plan. The Inspectors’ report was received in June 2000 and the Borough Council published its Proposed Modifications to the Plan.
29. The Inspectors’ report dealt specifically with the Barkby Road housing allocation and the various objections to this particular proposal (including those by local residents, the County Council and several statutory bodies/interest groups). The CPA objected to the allocation of the site in the Deposit Plan, on the basis that it did not provide the appropriate level of ‘transport choice’ to meet Structure Plan objectives (i.e. over 1km from Syston railway station). It did not make clear that the development should be designed and laid out to include satisfactory bus penetration, in accordance with Transport Policy 7 of the Structure Plan.
30. The Inspectors concluded that the proposed residential development conforms to the locational objectives of the Structure Plan and – subject to improved bus access – provides satisfactory transport choice. The Ridgemere Centre should be removed from the original residential allocation, because of its established commercial use, with related changes to the structural landscape allocation on the Plan.
31. In the light of the Inspectors’ findings and the proposed modifications to the relevant Policy H/1(q), the County Council has resolved to withdraw its previous holding objection to this housing allocation (meeting 3rd July 2001).
32. The Inspectors’ report addressed the matter of developer contributions and supports the case for reasonably related contributions towards improved community and recreational facilities, including the need for additional school places arising from the development. The cost of traffic management measures made necessary by the development should also be borne by the developer. It thereby dismisses objections to the proposal based on the inadequacy of local services and facilities in the town.
33. Policy H3 of the Local Plan makes provision for appropriate levels of affordable housing within new developments. A figure of 55 units is identified as reasonable on the current application site.
34. The Inspectors considered that Policy RT/9 (requiring a 20m wide landscape buffer to the north, south and east boundaries of the site) should be retained in the Plan. The report concludes that the application site represents the most appropriate and sustainable option for residential development in the Wreake Valley, without compromising major planning constraints in the area.
35. At this stage, the application site was allocated for residential development (340 dwellings) by virtue of Policy H/1(q), being one housing allocation on either side of Barkby Road Policy H/1(q) of the Local Plan - as modified in accordance with Proposed Changes and the Inspectors’ recommendations – set out criteria for the development of the application site, namely: 19
• vehicular access to the site is taken from a new roundabout junction on Barkby Road; • provision is made for highway improvements to the junction of Barkby Road with Melton Road; • provision is made for traffic management measures on specified roads in the locality; • provision is made for specified pedestrian and cycle links; • substantial block planting and landscaping is carried out around the site; • the form and layout provides a high standard of amenity for existing and future residents; • provision is made for additional school places generated by the development, in consultation with the Education Authority; • reasonably related contributions be negotiated towards improved community and recreational facilities; additional allotment land; and improved transport choice generated by the development
36. The latest version of PPG3 was not published at the time of the Inspectors’ report into Draft Local Plan, but its implications had been taken into account in the Borough Council’s assessment of residential land availability and hence the Modified Local Plan. The modified policy provided for an increase from 270 dwellings on 11.3ha (net), (24 dwellings/ha) to 340 dwellings on the same net area (30 dwellings/ha).
37. The Proposed Modifications to the Local Plan have been on the subject of a separate public inquiry, and the report by the appointed Inspector was received in Summer 2002. The Borough Council considered its response to that Inspector’s findings last Autumn and subsequently published its Further Proposed Modifications to the Plan in December 2002.
38. Further representations were received as a result and the Borough Council has now agreed its response to these (including its final Additional Further Modifications to the Plan) at its Cabinet meeting in June 2003. Notwithstanding its decision to accommodate the views of certain developers on the housing strategy in the final version of the Plan, a legal challenge remains in force for the time being. It contests the basis of assumptions made in the calculation and allocation of new housing land requirements up to 2006.
39. The CPA has been asked to respond on these latest Additional Modifications by 7th November 2003 and a separate report is being made to the Cabinet on the overall changes to the local Plan.
Housing Provision
40. The representations on the Further Modifications include objections to various ‘green field’ housing allocations and one from GO-EM on the Council’s approach to the selection of such sites (i.e. the sequential approach) and the densities of development. In the light of the Inspector’s findings into the Proposed Modifications and these latest representations, the Borough Council has now re- assessed and updated its housing land requirements and Greenfield allocations (as at June 2003). These calculations are subject to the legal challenge mentioned above (para. 23) and may hinder progress towards the final adoption of the Local Plan. 20
41. The updated housing land supply figures confirm many of the assumptions at the Modifications stage, including the grant of planning permissions for previously identified ‘pipeline’ sites (i.e. ‘brownfield’ sites the subject of planning applications) and approvals on 14 of the 17 ‘urban capacity’ sites. 8 greenfield allocations now have planning permission and 11 additional, previously unidentified, brownfield sites have the benefit of planning consents.
42. In summary, it has been calculated that, given expected completions on these permitted sites and an assumed ‘urban capacity allowance’, there is a need for a remaining balance of some 333 dwellings to be found by 2006. These dwellings will need to be provided on parts of 9 additional ‘greenfield’ allocations in the Additional Further Modifications (details of which will be the subject of future reports to the Board).
43. It is estimated that these greenfield sites could provide for some 1180 dwellings in total. However, given the short period of time until to end of the Local plan period (i.e. April 2006), only about 370 dwellings can be built by 2006. The remaining 810 dwellings will contribute to the strategic housing requirements of the Replacement Structure Plan (up to 2016).
44. The current application site at Barkby Road, Syston is included as one of the necessary greenfield sites in the Local Plan, on which an estimated 340 dwellings could be built. Of this total it is calculated that 88 dwellings can be built in the current Plan period up to 2006. The latest version of the Plan (now the subject of consultation as Additional Modifications) confirms the allocation of the site in Policy H1(q). 21
APPENDIX B HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
(REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORTATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT)
Background/Introduction
1. When the site was considered at the Local Plan Inquiry in 1998, the County Council in its capacity as the Highway Authority objected to the allocation on the basis that:
a) it did not consider the location of the site met the criteria to offer a realistic choice of transport,
b) the additional development traffic would further erode conditions on the surrounding road network which already experience problems associated with congestion, safety and amenity, arising from high volumes of traffic using substandard routes.
2. In response to these objections, the Inspector commented “in considering all the highway related objections I have seen no overriding evidence which convinces me that the allocation should be rejected on highway grounds. Neither am I persuaded of the County Council’s view that the location is so untenable that it need result in development which would be unacceptably dependent on the private car. In total, I consider that the package of traffic management measures specified represents a wide range of satisfactory and environmentally acceptable improvements which should enable the traffic impact arising from the development to be reasonably mitigated. These measures should also improve highway safety for car drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. In these respects the development would not be unacceptably at variance with the intentions of Transport Policy 4 of the LSP”.
3. The development at that time proposed about 270 dwellings, but following the issue of PPG3 in 2000 which advocates increased housing densities, the current application is now for 340 dwellings. A Transport Impact Assessment has been submitted by the Applicant’s Consultant which seeks to provide an update on the information presented to the earlier Inquiry and further defines the package of mitigating measures.
Highway Impact
4. The traffic generation and analysis has been carried out for typical morning and evening peak hour periods when the highest traffic volumes are likely to occur. The traffic generation resulting from the development for this period (330 vehicles/hour) has been assigned to the road network and, although neither the generation nor the distribution is disputed, the effectiveness of the proposed measures to satisfactorily deal with the level of impact is still of concern.
5. The most sensitive parts of the surrounding road pattern where the greatest effects are likely to be experienced are annotated on Appendix 1. The scale of the impact together with a description of the nature of the measures proposed by the Consultant are discussed below. 22
Barkby Road (between Pembroke Drive and Melton Road) (See A on Appendix 1)
6. The existing peak hour flows along Barkby Road varies between about 400 vehicles in the morning period and 550 vehicles in the evening. The additional traffic on this road arising from the development would predictively be about 120 vehicles/hour in the morning peak (+30% over the present level of flow) and 90 vehicles/hour for the evening situation (+16% increase).
7. Over this length of road, there have been 4 personal injury accidents during the last 5 years, one of which involved a cyclist and one a pedestrian. In order to mitigate the significant increase in traffic in relation to safety, the Consultant proposes the introduction of refuge-type traffic islands at three locations. This is aimed at providing some horizontal deflection to the traffic flow to reduce speeds and thus the accident potential, particularly to vulnerable users such as pedestrians and cyclists.
Comment
8. There are no objections in principle to this type of measure. However, one of the problems along Barkby Road is the presence of on-street parking, since many of the properties have little or no provision within their respective curtilages. In the area where the islands are proposed, it will be necessary to introduce parking controls to the consequent disbenefit of adjoining residents. The affect of any loss or displaced parking has not been assessed and there may be local objections. Additionally, one of the locations identified would require the removal of a number of mature trees within the verge. It is felt that the use of alternative vertical features (speed tables or humps) would be inappropriate for this road and be likely to meet with objections from the emergency services and residents.
Barkby Road/Melton Road/High Street Junction (see B on Appendix 1)
9. This busy crossroads junction in the centre of Syston is controlled by a mini roundabout. However, because of the staggered arrangement and the off-set location of the central dome opposite High Street, the layout can be confusing, particularly for traffic using the Barkby Road arm. There have been 6 recorded personal injury accidents at this junction over the last 5 years. With the exception of 1 accident which involved a pedestrian being hit by a passing vehicle’s wing mirror, all the accidents involved vehicles either emerging or entering Barkby Road.
10. In order to address the impact at this junction, the Consultant has put forward a proposal to replace the existing mini roundabout with traffic signals.
Comment
11. It is considered that the main benefit of introducing traffic signals at this junction is that the traffic movements would be more disciplined and hence safer. Pedestrians could cross all arms of the junction whilst vehicles are held back.
23
12. The detailed scheme as prepared by the Consultant would not be acceptable because of certain technical concerns although it is likely that the layout could be amended to reflect a more practicable arrangement. Nevertheless even if the technicalities can be overcome the predicted traffic movements will still exceed the capacity of the junction and overall delays will be perceived as being greater than those currently experienced.
13. There will be a need to extend the current parking restrictions on the junction approaches resulting in some loss of on-street parking which again may attract some local objection.
Barkby Village (see C on Appendix 1)
14. It is estimated that the development could generate about 150 vehicles/hr onto the Queniborough Road route through Barkby village. The existing flow on this road is already very high (900 veh/hr) and the development would therefore represent a significant increase (+17%). This minor road route through Barkby is extensively used by traffic wishing to avoid the alternative, less direct and more congested main road routes (i.e. the A607, Syston Northern Bypass and Melton Road through Syston).
15. In response to these concerns over the likely increase, the Consultant has suggested village ‘gateways’ on the various approaches into the village and a speed table at the Main Street/Queniborough Road junction.
Comment
16. In essence, the problems within Barkby arise from long queues developing at the Queniborough Road/Main Street junction in the morning and the high volumes of traffic having an adverse environmental impact (noise, fumes, intimidation, amenity etc.) due to the characteristics of the narrow, winding streets with buildings located close-up to the roads. Whilst the village ‘gateways’ would generally be welcomed, it is felt that the proposed improvements do not address the consequences of the additional development traffic.
Queniborough Village (see D on Appendix 1)
17. The existing peak hour flow along Barkby Road, Queniborough is 650 vehicles/hr. The additional traffic flow from the development in this direction is predicted to be of the order of 35 vehicles/hr, representing a 5% impact. By way of ameliorating this more modest level of increase, the Consultant has suggested that a mini- roundabout be introduced at the Barkby Road/Queniborough Road/Rearsby Road crossroads to address concerns about speeds and restricted sight lines at the junction.
Comment
18. The County Council has received requests for traffic calming measures in Queniborough, but at this time no firm proposals have emerged and there is no financial provision made in the current Capital programme. There are no technical 24
19. objections to the introduction of a mini-roundabout, although it is generally the case that when used as a calming measure they are not used in isolation and are usually accompanied by other complementary features, e.g. speed tables. The Parish Council have stated that they are strongly opposed to a roundabout being provided at the crossroads and favour the use of speed cameras as a possible alternative solution.
Barkby Road/Queniborough Road, Syston (see E on Appendix 1)
20. This is a rural junction where visibility to the right for drivers emerging from Barkby Road is restricted by an adjacent field hedge. Approaching vehicle speeds along Queniborough Road are relatively fast and to improve the junction conspicuity and enable drivers emerging from the side road to comfortably see oncoming traffic, the Applicant proposes to relocate the boundary hedge.
Comment
21. There was an accident earlier this year which involved a vehicle turning right from Barkby Road across the path of an oncoming vehicle travelling towards Queniborough. This improvement provides for an increased level of visibility commensurate with that recommended in national design guidance. There are therefore no objections to this particular improvement.
Public Transport/Cycling/Walking
21. The opportunities for travel by alternative modes to the car were examined at the Local Plan Public Inquiry and no subsequent evidence or guidance has emerged since that time upon which to base a challenge to the Inspector’s views in this regard (see para 2).
22. The site is nevertheless still considered to be remote from existing bus services and to ensure that there is an adequate level of accessibility, it will be necessary to extend the nearest regular current route (no. 65/66) into the site. The financial implications in subsidising this diverted service for the period of developing the site should be sought from the Developer.
23. In recent correspondence to the Borough Council, the Applicant has indicated a willingness to contribute £25,000 to the provision of enhancing public transport provision. However, officers of the County Council have not been involved in any discussions in this regard and the basis of the derivation of this figure has not been validated.
Representations Received
24. Following the submission of the planning application in November 2001 the County Council received 36 individual letters of objection referring to the inadequacy of the road network, together with a petition containing 111 signatures.
25. In addition to those forwarded for the County Council’s attention, it is also understood that many hundreds of similar representations have been made direct to the Borough Council. 25
26. Letters of objection relating to highway and transportation issues have also been received from Syston Town Council, Barkby Parish Council and Queniborough Parish Council. An extract of Syston Town Council’s submission setting out their conclusions on the Transport Assessment is shown in Appendix 2. The comments of Barkby and Queniborough Parish Councils are included in Appendices 3 and 4.
Section 106 Agreement (heads of Terms for Highway Improvements)
27. Following the Transport Assessment, the Applicant has submitted to the Borough Council, the suggested heads of terms in respect of the off-site highway improvements for inclusion in a Section 106 Agreement. Officers of the County Council have had no negotiations on the acceptability or otherwise of these terms, but the Developer has offered the following as a basis for discussion:
i) Prior to the occupation of the 100th dwelling, the Owners will contribute to the County Council the sum of £5000 towards the provision off site for improved cycling facilities.
ii) Prior to the occupation of the 100th dwelling, the Owners will contribute to the County Council the sum of £25,000 towards the provision of extending bus services into the site and/or providing bus shelters on the existing route.
iii) Prior to the occupation of the 100th dwelling, the Owners will pay for the County Council to carry out off site highway improvement works as follows;
a) Barkby Road/Queniborough Road, Syston – Junction improvement.
b) Main Street/Queniborough Road, Barkby – Traffic calming in form of speed table and parking areas at junction and village gateway.
c) Barkby Road – between the new roundabout site access and Melton Road – traffic calming in form of chicanes.
d) Barkby Road/Queniborough Road, Queniborough – proposed mini- roundabout.
e) Melton Road/Barkby Road, Syston – traffic signals with pedestrian facilities.
28. The sums referred to above in (i) and (ii) will need further examination and consideration.
29. The measures identified in (iii) (with the exception of a) would need to be opened- up to further consultation and the opportunity given for local views to be made known. There can be no certainty at this stage that they will necessarily be introduced in the form envisaged and if any amendments or reasonable equivalent alternative options emerge, these would be expected to be similarly financed at the Developer’s expense.
26
Conclusions
30. Whilst this report has had regard to the feasibility of the proposed mitigating highway schemes, the various works would clearly require further consultation with other statutory bodies, user groups/representative organisations and affected frontagers. The measures proposed in respect of Syston, (i.e. traffic signals at Barkby Road/Melton Road/High Street and traffic calming along Barkby Road) are not straightforward and potentially controversial.
31. The specific traffic calming measures proposed in respect of Queniborough would be opposed by Queniborough Parish Council. However, it is possible that an alternative approach involving a negotiated financial contribution (commensurate with the likely scale of the impact) could be secured and used by the County Council in its consideration of the wider calming opportunities for the village.
32. In the case of Barkby, the road alignment through the village already provides an effective constraint on vehicle speeds. Any further calming measures would be unlikely to bring about any significant lowering of speeds or result in a reduction in traffic volumes to other more desirable routes. The proposed measures would therefore have no discernible effect in lessening the significant impact arising from the development traffic.
33. There are therefore, serious doubts about the effectiveness of the proposed improvements and whether these will be sufficient to satisfactorily address the consequences of the additional traffic. However, given the Local Plan Inspector’s comments and judgement (set out in para. 2) it is considered doubtful that a fundamental highway objection could reasonably be sustained on these grounds alone.
34. If the Borough Council is minded to approve the application, it is recommended that the Director of Highways, Transportation and Waste Management be given authority to negotiate the terms of the Section 106 Agreement to safeguard the County Council’s interest. The basis of the contributions and highway improvements involved in that Agreement are generally identified in paragraph 27 although these could be subject to changes which may emerge following further consultation and detail design approval. 27
28
APPENDIX 2
Extract of the representation sent
by Syston Town Council
In respect of highway matters 29 30 31
APPENDIX 3
Comments of Barkby Parish Council 32 33 34
APPENDIX 4
Comments of Queniborough Parish Council 35