Planning Committee Report
Applicant: Langton Developments Ltd
Application Ref: 16/00802/FUL
Location: Land off Dingley Road, Great Bowden
Proposal: Erection of 17 dwellings, including affordable bungalows with infrastructure, means of access and open space
Application Validated: 17.05.2016
Target Date: 16.08.16 (Extension of Time Agreed)
Case Officer: Susan Garbutt
Recommendation
The application should be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1) The proposed housing scheme and associated vehicular access will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of Great Bowden Conservation Area and the established setting of the nearby listed buildings. The harm to the designated heritage assets identified are not outweighed by public benefits of the proposal. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies CS1, CS11 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy and Framework policy 12.
2) The proposed scheme will have an adverse impact upon the survival of the moated platform, an archaeological remain. Furthermore, it will have an adverse effect on the significance of the setting of the Victorian cemetery. The scale of harm to these non- designated heritage assets is of such a degree that is would have a significant and detrimental impact on their original setting. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies CS1, CS11 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy and Framework policy 12.
3) Plots 1 and 2, by virtue of their scale, design and positioning will not safeguard the amenities of existing and future residents of number 10 Dingley Road. Plots 3 and 4 and plot 9 by virtue to their southern orientation and close positioning to existing mature trees, which are proposed to be retained, would result in considerable future pressure for them to be removed. Furthermore, there is insufficient information relating to boundary treatment to demonstrate that an acceptable relationship will be created between plot 11 and number 27 Knights End Road. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy and Framework policy 7 and Core Planning Principle 4.
1. Site & Surroundings
1.1 The application site (hereafter referred to as ‘the site’), measures just under 3 hectares and is located to the southern side of Dingley Road, on the eastern fringes of Great Bowden, circa 2.1km northeast of Market Harborough. The irregular 3 hectare site comprises two large sub-rectangular adjacent fields on the eastern side, another large ‘L-shaped’ field to the immediate south-west and a narrow projection of land westwards towards the village core, neighbouring two smaller rectangular fields to the north. There is an area of archaeology in the north-east of the site. There is an established spinney of trees to the northern boundary adjacent to Dingley Road. There is evidence of ridge and furrow in the western half of the site.
1.2 The site is bounded to the north by Dingley Road itself, and a terrace of houses (most of which are Grade II listed) on the opposite side. To the west the site adjoins the rear of existing residential properties fronting Knight’s End Road, whilst there is a cemetery to the east and agricultural fields to the south. The A6 is located circa 450m east of the site.
1.3 A wooden stable block is situated in the north-western field parcel; a defunct, steel- sheet clad cow shelter is situated on the northern boundary to the west of the cemetery and a cow shelter is located on the north-eastern boundary of the central field parcel.
Site Location Plan
Aerial Location Plan
1.4 The River Welland is located to the east. The main ordinary watercourse in the area is Gunn’s Brook which runs through the centre of Great Bowden and the site (west to east) through a number of culverts and open ditch courses. There is also an existing ditch which runs along the site’s western boundary, to the rear of gardens of the properties along The Green and Knights End Road, which joins the Brook.
1.5 There are no public footpaths located through the site; but there is a right of way A54 to the south from Station Road to Dingley Road
1.6 The Site lies beyond but adjacent to, the Limits to Development of Great Bowden, a Selected Rural Village. The site is located within an Area of Separation as identified on the 2001 Local Plan Proposal’s Map, shown in green below (the site is within parcel C).
Area of Separation
1.7 Part of the site is also within the Great Bowden Conservation Area (shown in blue below). The Church of St Peter and St Paul, a Grade I Listed Building is situated immediately to the north-west of the site.
Part of the Site within the Conservation Area
1.8 The site generally falls from east to west forming a valley with higher points to the north and south. The highest topographical point lies in the north west corner although similar heights are also present to the southwest corner. The lowest topographical point is along the full length of the eastern boundary with Dingley Road.
2. Site History
2.1 The site itself has no previous planning history. However it should be noted:
1) An outline application for 5 dwellings on the opposite side of Dingley Road was allowed by Planning Committee on 17th January 2016 (16/00997/OUT).
2) A full application to change the use of the agricultural land to extend the existing cemetery to the east is also on this Agenda for determination (16/01847/FUL).
3. Pre-application Engagement
3.1 A pre-application meeting was held with the applicant in August 2015, following the submission of a pre-application enquiry. This put forward a proposal for 16 dwellings on 1.5ha of land south of Dingley Road (referred to as ‘Option A’). The enquiry also made the LPA aware of a further parcel of land available for development, that could form part of a broader proposal with pedestrian access from Knight’s End Road (Option B).
3.2 In October 2015, formal pre-application advice was provided. The advice advised the applicant that the LPA did not have a 5 year land supply and the site was within a Selected Rural Village with good links to Market Harborough. The applicant was advised that to aid the LPA in being able to determine the planning application, information relating to flood risk; highways; landscape and visual; archaeological; conservation area appraisal; heritage impact assessment would be necessary.
3.3 Following this response, the applicant undertook further work and decided to amalgamate Options A and B to put forward a comprehensive proposal for residential development.
4. Summary of Proposals
ORIGINAL SUBMISSION
4.1 The application originally submitted sought full planning permission for 29 dwellings, together with a small children’s play area to the west of the site and a pedestrian link to the south-west of the site, connecting onto Knights End Road. A new green was proposed at the north-east corner of the site, with paddock fields to the south.
4.2 Access is proposed via a new junction introduced to Dingley Road, creating a spine road and driveways set further within the site.
4.3 The buildings fronting onto Dingley Road comprised a terrace of ten units; a terrace of five units bound the southern edge of the archaeological earthworks; larger link- detached and detached units were proposed to the west and south.
4.4 In addition the Site Location Plan, Proposed Site Plan and Design and Access Statement (prepared by BRP Architects); the application was originally accompanied by the following supporting documents:
Arboricultural Survey and Generic Report (Richard Jones, July 2015)
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment (ULAS, February 2016)
Archaeological earthwork survey, ULAS, May, 2016
Archaeology – geophysical survey report, Stratascan, April 2016
Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, REC, August 2015
Flood Risk Assessment
Heritage Impact Assessment Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal (Munro + Whitten Ltd, May 2016)
Planning Statement
Transport Statement
Proposed Boundary Treatment Plan
Proposed Detached Garages
Proposed House types
Existing Site Plan
4.5 During the course of the application, the scheme has been amended twice to reflect comments from the case officer, consultees and the community.
AMENDMENT A
4.6 Amendment A was submitted in September 2016. The number of dwellings reduced to 23; the play area had been replaced with a car park for up to 14no. vehicles – made available for the local community, either directly by people using the Village Hall or for the general public use by those accessing the local amenities in and around The Green; the pedestrian link to the south-west had been removed; the access road had been realigned; the terrace fronting the earthworks to the north-east of the site (Plots 19-23) had been further set back; informal buffers between residential curtilage and hedge proposed to encourage and support wildlife and biodiversity; the existing spinney was largely retained, maintaining the soft/green approach to the village when entering from the east and lessening the impact upon the setting of St Peter and St Pauls Church and the proposed dwellings in this location had been set further back from Dingley Road. In addition southern plots had been re-orientated to reduce the impact on 27 Knights End Road and although not within the application red line boundary an area of land which the applicant has an option on to be potentially be transferred to the LPA in lieu of off- site POS contributions.
4.7 The following supporting information accompanied Amendment A
o Heritage Impact Assessment Issue 2 (Purcell, August 2016)
o Conservation Area Appraisal Issue 3 (Purcell, August 2016)
o Trees and Hedges – As existing
o Trees and Hedges – removal over existing
o Trees and Hedges – proposed layout
o House types A, B,C,E,F,G,I1, I2, J1, J2, K,M
o Proposed detached garages
o Dingley Road Sketch perspectives 1 & 2
o Tree Protection Plan
o Design and Access Statement (Rev A)
o Drainage Strategy
o Visibility Access
o Landscape Proposals (Rev B) o Arboricualtural Impact Assessment
o Flood Risk Assessment (Rev B)
o Field Evaluation Report
o Proposed Site Plan (Rev A)
4.8 Whilst some of these amendments were welcomed, concerns were still raised in particular by the case officer, conservation officer and LLFA.
AMENDMENT B
4.9 Amendment B was submitted in 6th January 2017. However, the amendments were not formally consulted on until 17th January 2017 as Officers requested clarification on a number of points from the amendments provided.
4.10 Amendment B has reduced the number of dwellings from 23 to 17; the existing tree and hedge frontage to Dingley Road is being largely retained and has now been strengthened by re-locating the dwellings further into the site and revised to the north- west create a farmstead style arrangement (single storey), set broadly in the location of an original barn from the 19th Century; the car park area has been removed. Plots 17 and 18 adjacent to and backing on to the cemetery have been removed and replaced with open green space to overcome concerns raised by the LLFA and to protect the privacy of the cemetery visitors. In addition, the two end terrace plots, namely 13 and 14 have been lowered from 2.5 storey to 2 storeys in order to reduce the massing adjacent to the cemetery. The revised layout also includes; a reduction in the size of the adoptable shared surface road, relocation of footpath on Dingley Road to the access road, removal of footpath through Listed gate posts.
4.11 The revised Design and Access Statement says at 3.3.8
“As per the previous revision the need for the cemetery to have access to additional land to preserve its future has been tabled during the initial consultation period. The Applicant is prepared to assist where possible, and has outlined an area of land to the east of the cemetery as being a potential solution to meet this need. A formal planning application, ref: 16/01847/FUL has been submitted for the change of use from agricultural land to cemetery use. This demonstrates an extended level of commitment by the Applicant to deliver additional benefits back to the village”.
4.12 The following supporting information accompanied Amendment B -
o Covering letter 16-1-17
o Heritage Impact Assessment Issue 3 (Purcell, January 2017)
o Summary of amendments and benefits Rev A
o Proposed Site Plan dwg. L303 P003 Rev R
o Proposed Boundary Treatment Plan dwg. L303 P004 Rev F
o Hedges and Trees Proposed Layout dwg. L303 P007 Rev B
o Hedges and Trees Proposed Layout dwg. L303 P009 Rev D
o Landscape Scheme dwg. 0740.002D
o Response to TLP comments by Munro + Whitten
4.13 The application is being assessed against Amendment B.
4.14 In addition to the material supplied under Amendment B, the Applicant has submitted:
o A Draft S106 Planning Agreement
o Draft S106 Heads of Terms o A letter from Shakespeare Martineau on behalf of the Applicant with regards to how the applicant considers the proposed obligations in respect to secure land to extend and enhance existing cemetery and community facilities meet Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations
4.15 This report will also take these documents into consideration.
5. Consultations and Representations
5.1 Consultations with technical consultees and the local community were carried out on the application.
5.2 Site Notices were placed along Dingley Road and Knights End Road and a Press Advert was placed in the Harborough Mail.
5.3 A summary of the technical consultee responses which have been received is set out below. Comments which relate to developer contributions are set out in detail in Appendix A. If you wish to view comments in full, please request sight or go to:
www.harborough.gov.uk/planning a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees
Please Note - only the latest consultee comments have been summarised.
5.4 Environment Agency (18/10/16)
From a planning perspective we would not have any comment to make (although obviously we welcome measures being brought forward to remove / alleviate flood risk).
I have however forwarded your email to colleagues in our Kettering office who may have some comments regarding the proposal to realign the Gunn’s Brook and remove culverts from the perspective of the Water Framework Directive (WFD)
WFD catchment Delivery Manager Have nothing to comment specifically in this location. The work they intend would not impact on the WFD main river.
5.5 Historic England (20/6/16)
Advice We note the supporting information including the Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Area Assessment. In assessing the impact of this proposal on the significance of the designated and non designated heritage assets identified, including the Grade I listed Church of St Peter and St Paul, the Grade II* Old Rectory and the Great Bowden conservation area, the contribution of this undeveloped site to the significance of these heritage assets requires thorough assessment. In addition, the historic use of the site and association with the listed Grade II gate piers is unclear. We also refer you to your authority's conservation area statement and to your local plan policies and defined Area of Separation. For guidance on setting, we refer you to the Planning Practice Guidance and the Historic Environment Good Practice in Planning Note 2-3.
Recommendation We would urge you to address the above issues, and recommend that the application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice. It is not necessary for us to be consulted again.
5.6 Anglian Water (15/6/16)
Assets Affected There are assets owned by Anglian Water or those subject to an adoption agreement within or close to the development boundary that may affect the layout of the site. Anglian Water would ask that a note be added to the Notice should permission be granted.
Wastewater Treatment The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Market Harborough Water Recycling Centre that will have available capacity for these flows.
Foul Sewerage Network The sewerage system at present has available capacity for these flows. If the developer wishes to connect to our sewerage network they should serve notice under Section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991. We will then advise them of the most suitable point of connection.
Surface Water Disposal From the details submitted to support the planning application the proposed method of surface water management does not relate to Anglian Water operated assets. As such, we are unable to provide comments on the suitability of the surface water management. The Local Planning Authority should seek the advice of the Lead Local Flood Authority. The Environment Agency should be consulted if the drainage system directly or indirectly involves the discharge of water into a watercourse. Should the proposed method of surface water management change to include interaction with Anglian Water operated assets, we would wish to be re-consulted to ensure that an effective surface water drainage strategy is prepared and implemented.
5.7 East Leicestershire and Rutland CCG – (June 16) (Awaiting updated figures)
Request for a financial contribution – see Appendix A for more information.
5.8 Leicestershire County Council, Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) – (20/2/17)
This response has been prepared by WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff on behalf of Leicestershire County Council. It should be noted that WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff have not been provided with the fluvial flood model files for review as this has previously been undertaken by others and responded to accordingly.
When determining planning applications, Local Planning Authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where, informed by a site-specific flood risk assessment and will not put the users of the development at risk. Although predominantly located within Flood Zone 1 (low risk), the site lies partially within Flood Zones 2 and 3 associated with the on-site watercourse (Gunn’s Brook). Site specific fluvial modelling undertaken by the applicant identifies areas at risk which informed modifications to the masterplan, ensuring all proposed built development is located outside the 1 in 1,000 year flood extents. The proposed surface water drainage system is split into two catchments as a result of the on-site watercourse bisecting the proposals. The total discharge rate from the proposals is agreed as 6.8 l/s (QBar) and the scale of on-site attenuation has been calculated based on surcharging of the outfalls to the watercourse. Flood compensation is proposed to offset the local loss of flood storage as a result of the proposals, most notably as a result of proposed access which is to cross the existing watercourse. Leicestershire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority advises the Local Planning Authority that: • The proposed development would be considered acceptable to Leicestershire County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority if the following planning conditions are attached to any permission granted.
Condition 1 – Fluvial Modelling No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until such time as a final detailed hydraulic modelling of the watercourse has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authority. The currently proposed layout indicates that there are a number of structures including highways located in close proximity to the watercourse passing through the site. Whilst the initial masterplan has been amended to ensure residential development remains outside the high risk zones, the watercourse assessment should identify the capacity within watercourse channel, the inflows for the 1 in 1 year, 1 in 30 year, 1 in 100 year, 1 in 100 year + new Environment Agency climate change allowances and 1 in 1,000 year events
Condition 2 – Watercourse Maintenance No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until such time as a detailed assessment of the access requirements for watercourse maintenance has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Lead Local Flood Authority. As land owner and riparian owner of the watercourse, there are certain responsibilities for watercourse maintenance; this responsibility will be passed on to the plot/ land owners adjacent to the watercourse, the introduction of permanent features adjacent to the watercourse has the potential to prevent access for the appropriate equipment to maintain the watercourse and increase the flood risk to the site.
Condition 3 – Surface Water Drainage No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until such time as a surface water drainage scheme in strict accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (21468/09-16/4288 Rev C January 2017) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.
Note to Applicant The scheme shall include the utilisation of holding sustainable drainage techniques with the incorporation of sufficient treatment trains to maintain or improve the existing water quality; the limitation of surface water run-off to equivalent greenfield rates; the ability to accommodate surface water run-off on-site up to the critical 1 in 100 year event plus an appropriate allowance for climate change, based upon the submission of drainage calculations; and the responsibility for the future maintenance of drainage features. Full details for the drainage proposal should be supplied, including but not limited to, headwall details, pipe protection details (e.g. trash screens), long sections and full model scenario’s for the 1 in 1, 1in 30 and 1 in 100 year + climate change. It is noted that the Flood Risk Assessments standing advice for the vulnerable developments on https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessment-standing- advice states ground levels shouldbe a minimum of 300mm above the general ground level of the site and 600mm above the estimated river or sea flood level. This standing advice should be followed especially in the areas within and adjacent to and at risk of surface water flood, in order to prevent risk to property as a result of surface runoff through exceedance routes.
Condition 4 – Construction Surface Water Management Plan No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until such time as details in relation to the management of surface water on site during construction of the development has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Note to Applicant Details should demonstrate how surface water will be managed on site to prevent an increase in flood risk during the various construction stages of development from initial site works through to completion. This shall include temporary attenuation, additional treatment, controls, maintenance and protection. Details regarding the protection of any proposed infiltration areas should also be provided.
Condition 5 - SuDS Maintenance Plan & Schedule No development approved by this planning permission, shall take place until such time as details in relation to the long term maintenance of the sustainable surface water drainage system within the development have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Note to Applicant Details of the SuDS Maintenance Plan should include for routine maintenance, remedial actions and monitoring of the separate elements of the system, and should also include procedures that must be implemented in the event of pollution incidents within the development site. Due to the low discharge rates from the 2 no. proposed Catchments, the resulting Hydro-Brakes will be smaller than is typical and therefore more prone to blockage. As such, it is requested that the SuDS Maintenance Plan accounts for this through the provision of more regular inspections of the controls and upstream SuDS features.
5.9 Leicestershire County Council, Highway Authority – (17/2/17)
The County Highway Authority advice is that, in its view the residual cumulative impacts of development can be mitigated and are not considered severe in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF, subject to the Conditions outlined in this report.
The County Highway Authority (CHA) notes significant local opposition to the above application and has received ongoing and extensive correspondence with the applicant and various interested parties.
Leicestershire County Council as a statutory consultee in the planning process must provide advice in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) which are both issued by Central Government. The scope of the County Highway Authority response is therefore limited only to the areas established by these documents.
In complying with this guidance the County Highway Authority’s role is therefore not to be an advocate for either the local community or the developer. The national guidance contains a clear presumption in favour of sustainable development, with the role of the County Highway Authority being to give an unbiased technical assessment on the grounds of capacity, safety and transport sustainability of the net impact of the submitted application. NPPF is clear that “Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.” It cannot be expected for developers to mitigate existing concerns, just the impact of their particular application. Therefore it is for the Local Planning Authority to consider and afford relevant weight and material planning consideration in their determination of this planning application.
The County Highway Authority provides these revised comments following submission of the revised layout and scale of development as per drawing Proposed Site Plan P003 Rev R and Transport Statement Report Ref: 21468/05-16/4279 REV A:
As referenced previously, the County Highway Authority (CHA) undertook its own independent speed surveys which validated those submitted in support of this application. The survey undertaken and method of assessment used by the applicant in calculating the visibility splays required provided cause for concern to the CHA such that it was deemed necessary to commission its own independent surveys. The independent surveys were undertaken in free-flow conditions and utilised a correctly administered wet weather adjustment to demonstrate 85th percentile speeds of 32.4mph and 31.1mph for vehicles travelling in a Southeast and Northwest direction respectively.
The visibility splays proposed within the submission are therefore considered acceptable to enable a safe and suitable access for vehicular traffic in accordance with local and national policy and guidance however provision of these visibility splays will lead to a fairly extensive impact on the roadside hedge and trees which is likely to be significant in planning terms.
Trip Generation and Capacity Assessment
The assessment work undertaken by the applicant demonstrates no severe impact in capacity terms from the proposed development. The CHA would not normally expect this level of detailed assessment for a development of the scale proposed and would therefore commend such a thorough and detailed assessment being undertaken.
Waiting Restrictions
Whilst the CHA previously sought a contribution towards waiting restrictions to prevent a worsening of on street parking along Dingley Road and in the vicinity of the access however following the reduced scale of development, reduced density and revised layout this contribution would no longer be sought.
Layout
Following review of the latest revised layout submission, whilst the County Highway Authority would not seek to resist the layout proposed would advise that it is not considered suitable for adoption by LCC as publically maintainable highway. LCC will however serve Advanced Payment Code (APC’s) under section 219 of the highway act and the site will remain private in perpetuity.
Conditions
1 No dwelling shall be occupied until the highway works shown within drawing number 21468_08_020_02 Rev M, including necessary additional street lighting, has been constructed in general accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development and in the interests of highway safety.
2 If any vehicular access gates, barriers, bollards, chains or other such obstructions are to be erected they shall be set back a minimum distance of 5 metres behind the highway boundary and shall be hung so as not to open outwards. Reason: To enable a vehicle to stand clear of the highway whilst the gates are opened/closed and protect the free and safe passage of traffic, including pedestrians, in the public highway.
3 Before first use of the development hereby permitted, drainage shall be provided within the site such that surface water does not drain into the Public Highway including private access drives, and thereafter shall be so maintained. Reason: To reduce the possibility of surface water from the site being deposited in the highway causing dangers to highway users.
4 No development shall commence on the site until such time as a construction traffic/site traffic management plan, including wheel cleansing facilities and vehicle parking facilities, and a timetable for their provision, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable. Reason: To reduce the possibility of deleterious material (mud, stones etc) being deposited in the highway and becoming a hazard to road users, and to ensure that construction traffic/site traffic associated with the development does not lead to on- street parking problems in the area.
5 Notwithstanding the submitted detail, before first occupation of any dwelling, car parking shall be provided with dimensions in accordance with the CHA design standards, hard surfaced and made available for use to serve that dwelling on the basis of 2 spaces for a dwelling with up to three bedrooms and 3 spaces for a dwelling with four or more bedrooms. The parking spaces including additional parking court so provided shall thereafter be permanently so maintained. Reason: To ensure that adequate off-street parking provision is made to reduce the possibilities of the proposed development leading to on-street parking problems in the area.
6 Before first use of the development hereby permitted, visibility splays shall be provided at the junction of the access with Dingley Road in accordance with drawing number 21468_08_020_02 Rev M. These shall be in accordance with the standards contained in the current County Council design guide and shall thereafter be permanently so maintained. Nothing shall be allowed to grow above a height of 0.6 metres above ground level within the visibility splays. Reason: To afford adequate visibility at the access/junction to cater for the expected volume of traffic joining the existing highway network and in the interests of general highway safety.
Notes to applicant are also recommended.
5.10 Leicestershire County Council Principal Historic Buildings Officer (8/2/17)
In my view the amended scheme will cause less harm to the historic environment of Great Bowden than the previous submission. I remain of the opinion that the development as a whole will still have a detrimental impact on the rural setting or significance of local designated and non-designated heritage assets and I would welcome further mitigation through design and a reduction in the number of houses. Whilst I believe that the level of harm to the significance of the heritage assets will be less than substantial this does not mean that it can be ignored and I hope that your authority will give it the appropriate weight when applying the relevant legislation and planning policy as part of the decision making process.
5.11 Leicestershire County Council Principal Planning Archaeologist (17/2/17)
Effort has been made to reduce the critical impact upon the moated platform to the north, however, on balance it is considered that the scheme represent a significant and detrimental impact to the survival of this known heritage asset. The moated platform will become an isolated surviving earthwork fragment, divorced from its historical and archaeological context. Whilst it is accepted that this impact, and else across the development area, can be in part off-set by appropriate targeted archaeological investigation and recording, the process of excavation cannot sustain and conserve the amenity value, sense of place and identity offered by the surviving earthworks and their associated archaeological remains.
5.12 Leicestershire County Council Senior Ecologist (12/10/16)
No objections to the development, subject to the following:
Prior to determination: Amendments to the layout to protect hedgerows and retention of all trees which meet LWS criteria (Officer Note: this has been undertaken and reflected in Amendments A&B)
Prior to commencement: Works to be in accordance with the recommendations in Section 6 of the ecology survey (REC, August 2015) and an updated badger survey
5.13 Leicestershire County Council Senior Forestry Team Leader- (21/2/17)
I don’t have any further arboricultural comments on this, except to note that a) the frontage spinney has been retained almost in its entirety; and b) the tree G12 at the entrance splay is retained unless there’s a significant sightline problem. I would refer you to my earlier comments on the landscaping/tree-planting proposals and my suggestions for alternatives.
(12/10/16) I visited the site yesterday to look specifically at the Dingley Road frontage, where several trees are proposed for removal. T44 is proposed for removal for the access road into the development; although a large specimen it is categorised low because of its relatively short safe life expectancy and its potential defects. The smaller T45 is recommended for removal because of a stem decay defect. G12 comprises two middle aged ash trees in good health and condition, growing in the existing hedge line. One tree is a twin-stemmed example bifurcating at about 1.5m. Both have clear stems and if retained could have some remedial works to shorten branches to obtain a more symmetrical crown shape. The suggested reason for the removal of these two trees is “highways safety as requested by LCC highways”, presumably a sightline matter. I wonder if the highways advisor might permit their retention for the interim if the development were approved, to limit the tree losses on this frontage in view of any local objections. The restriction of sightlines appears minimal (on the face of it) particularly if the hedge were removed, but if this proved problematic they could be removed later.
On the landscaping plan, there are a number of proposed tree locations where in my opinion the selected species will ultimately be too large for their position in relation to houses. This will inevitably lead to either tree ‘butchery’ or removal and the inevitable degrading of the landscape. These are as follows – Plot 9 – S8 Carpinus Frans Fontaine – although ostensibly a narrow-crowned tree and notably so as nursery stock, it is likely to develop at maturity into a large, dense ovoid crown which will not be compatible and is almost impossible to prune successfully. Plots 11/12/13/17 – S7 Pyrus Chanticleer – a useful and attractive species but again can grow much larger than one might expect, and presenting problems later. For both these species and in the locations shown, I would recommend a smaller-growing and attractive species such as serviceberry – Amelanchier Robin Hill – which is smaller- growing, with flower and autumn colour, and more easily pruned if required. Plot 19 – S3 Acer campestre – field maple can develop into a medium-sized broad- crowned tree which I suggest will be a nuisance especially for the three trees proposed in the row east of this plot. If field maple is preferred, a better choice would be a selected variety such as A.c. Elegant which has a much tighter and more upright crown; A. c. Queen Elizabeth/Lineco/William Caldwell would be second choices if A.c. Elegant were unavailable. For uniformity’s sake, perhaps the whole row would be better as one of these species. I note that all the larger trees are proposed as ‘RB’ – rootballed. In my opinion they would be better supplied as container-grown in large containers provided by a quality nursery, where fibrous root development is virtually guaranteed. From experience rootballed trees have 70+% of their root systems left in the nursery on lifting, which often means poor establishment and failure to thrive and develop, especially with larger specimens. (The recent BS8545:2014’ Trees from Nursery to Establishment’ provides excellent guidance).
5.14 Leicestershire County Council Developer Contribution Officer (14/2/17)
No developer contributions are sought for Education, Libraries and Waste. There is also no requirement for a contribution towards landscaping / environmental improvements in this particular case. However, the developer should be made aware that the application site is in close proximity to the Great Bowden Conservation Area to the south. In addition, the western half of the application site exhibits ridge and furrow remnants.
5.15 HDC Neighbourhood & Green Spaces Officer
Original Comments The applicant has provided in excess of the requirement for natural and semi natural greenspace. The SUDS scheme should be planted for habitat and biodiversity. I will be happy to comment further when a detailed landscape plan is available.
Amendment A I note the addition of a proposed cemetery extension.
The proposal for a cemetery extension as part of the application will need to be discussed at Corporate Management Team. It will also be subject to the requirements of the Cemetery and Burial Strategy, once adopted.
Amendment B (17/1/17) I have no further comments to add. Revised POS calculations received 23/2/17, referred to at Appendix A.
5.16 HDC Contaminated Land & Air Quality Officer (14/9/16)
Due to the findings of the Soiltechnics Ltd Preliminary Investigation Report (Desk study and site reconnaissance report), permission should be conditioned to request a Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment and Completion/Verification Investigation Report.
5.17 HDC Environmental Health Officer (20/5/16)
Owing to the close proximity to existing residential accommodation, a Construction Method Statement condition should be imposed on any approval.
5.18 HDC Housing Enabling and Community Infrastructure Officer (17/1/17)
Our Affordable Housing requirement will be to seek 40% Affordable Housing (AH) of the total site yield, in accordance with Policy CS3. On a site proposal of 17 units, this will equal 6.8 units, rounded up to 7 AH units. Our tenure split requirements are for the affordable requirement to be provided as 60% rented and 40% to be provided as intermediate or shared ownership
There have been ongoing discussions with the applicant on the required unit mix. We accept their proposal to provide 4 bungalows which we accept on a 1 for 2 basis to meet our requirement as there are a number of complexities with this site that suggest that bungalow provision is a more suitable unit type that will accord favourably with the proposed layout and overcome site sensitivities. Whilst our preferred unit mix would have differed, given these circumstances we can be flexible and accommodate this requirement. We would ask the applicant to consult our RP partners at their earliest opportunity to discuss this AH scheme
5.19 HDC Community Partnerships
The Community Facilities charging policy and local evidence requirements to be applied to developments of 10 or more houses is set out in the Roger Tym Report, which the council adopted in 2010.
In terms of this development based on 17 dwellings we would request the following amount, with regards to Section 106 contributions to Community Facilities. Either:-
£8,466 for upgrading of existing facilities or £16,966 for new build of facilities (However the Parish Council would need to make a sound evidenced-based bid for new build facilities, as we do not currently have any evidence on file to support this).
Regarding the issue of the developer gifting land in lieu of Sec106 contributions, we would have the following comments/concerns:
That a gift of land does not meet the definition of Community Facilities, which is defined as community / village hall indoor venues and indoor sports venues. In other words ‘bricks and mortar’.
5.20 Great Bowden Parish Council (17/11/16)
Objects to the application on the basis that the proposed development would have an adverse effect upon the rural character and appearance of the site and the setting of Great Bowden. The site is in part situated within the Great Bowden Conservation Area. Accordingly the proposal is contrary to the Core Strategy Policy CS11 and CS17c. The proposed development would also be contrary to the aims and objective of the Framework. This harm is not outweighed by any housing needs in the area.
In the last 12 months planning approval has been issued for 122 dwellings in Great Bowden, far in excess of the planned need for the village in the next 15 years. This figure equates to an increase in excess of 27% in the number of dwellings in Great Bowden.
Additionally the traffic impact on Dingley Road and throughout the village centre would have a detrimental impact on the existing residents*
The site has over recent years been subject to severe flooding following which little or no remedial work has been carried out making the site unsuitable for development.
This development would generate additional children of primary school age. These cannot be accommodated at Great Bowden Academy, which despite a recently built extension, is already at capacity the nearest, Meadowdale and Ridgeway, are already substantially over capacity.
*Officer Note: the Parish Council commissioned a traffic survey and this report was sent to County Highways.
5.21 CPRE Leicestershire (14/2/17)
Strongly object to the application. We feel that this un allocated application fails to meet our aims in several ways. On the setting of heritage assets alone this application should be rejected. There are two other relevant concerns. 1. Within about 30m of the curtilage of the proposed site are 11 listed buildings and a Grade 1 Church. The setting of these historic buildings should be respected. NPPF para 32 states ‘when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the assets, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage asset are irreplaceable, any harm should require clear and convincing justification. We understand that previous application with similar nearby heritage assets have been rejected by planning inspectors prioritising their conservation over housing provision. Dated 11/4/16 Good Practice and Understanding the NPPF – Heritage Assessments – states that ‘less than substantial harm does not equate tom less than substantial Planning objection.’ A local precedent is set from the judgement in Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v East Northants DC, English Heritage, National Trust and SSCLG, June 14. This was a judgement by Lord Justice Sullivan quashing a decision of a Planning Inspector who had granted permission for a wind farm. He said the proposal; would have damaged the setting of a heritage asset called Lyveden New Bield. Thus we believe that the setting of the existing heritage assets should be retained and the proposal rejected. A less significant and non-designated neighbouring site is the cemetery. The tranquil atmosphere of this important asset would be destroyed by impact from an adjacent development. The proposed site was visited 7/02/17, a Tuesday morning. Dingley Road, a very narrow road, was busy at the is time and there was no pavement. We understand that access to this site has been amended but still contend that access onto Dingley Road would be dangerous s cars are randomly parked along it. For the reasons set out above we hope that the application will be rejected.
b) Local Residents/ Community Groups
5.22 In total, 315 (as of 24/02/17) letters/emails of objection have been received against the application. Some of the correspondence received are from the same households and some include photographs and illustrative diagrams/maps. A small minority of the correspondence received have given only their name or address and as such only limited weight can be given to these letters.
5.23 The case officer acknowledges several of the objections submitted are very detailed and whilst regard has been had to these in assessing this application, it is impractical to copy these verbatim and therefore a summary of the key points is provided below.
Original Submission:
Dingley Road is arguably the most dangerous in the village with a blind ‘s’ bend and cars parked on one side of a narrow road Loss of countryside view Local residents want development to the west of the village Development will take Great Bowden beyond its housing target Land is protected by Area of Separation The TA fails to assess the impact of the development upon existing street parking/congestion problems Loss of spinney Impact upon setting of village Development will destroy landscape character Destroy wildlife School is at capacity Modern development not appropriate adjacent to listed buildings Development will damage the character and conservation area status of the village Increased pressure to develop the village on a large scale is steadily eroding and undermines its historical importance and character There are other areas on the immediate fringe of Great Bowden where ‘limited development’ would not appear to prejudice the degree of separation unlike here. Peace and tranquillity of paying my respects to my parents will be disturbed The housing target is for the next 15 years, do not need all the development now No more housing required in light of recent approvals at Welham Lane and Berry Close Natural greenspace would be lost Noise and vibration from development construction Only brownfield development should be allowed Development will bring no benefits to established community Development will affect outlook I do not want to be starred at whilst paying my respects in the cemetery Any increase in traffic will increase the risk of accidents Value of property will be affected Pedestrian access through the listed pier gates on a blind bend is a very dangerous proposal Development is outside village limits The current approach to the village will be lost The development is sited on a flood plain The fields flood 3 storey houses are far too big and will have an overbearing impact on existing houses Development is a hammerhead and not a cul-de-sac which implies future development Private grief will become a spectacle Poor visibility of traffic from proposed entrance Entrance opposite an existing entrance Great Bowden is being swapped with planning applications Development will change character of village forever Who will maintain the culverts? The fields form part of the historic welland valley once described as ‘the richest grazing land in the world’ There is no presumption in favour of sustainable development Development does not comply with heritage policy Devastation of ancient hedgerows Cemetery is a place of reflection No parking provision for visitors Adverse effect upon setting of the church Garages will be converted to living spaces or storage and not used for parking Great Bowden is a selected rural village which is only suppose to take minimal development New houses will detract from the calm setting of the church and environs Proposed playground not required Great Bowden is the original settlement of Market Harborough and needs protecting from overdevelopment of the village The impact of the development on the view, setting and surroundings of the ancient village church will be extremely detrimential Scale of development is completely out of keeping with the scale of existing dwellings This is important open space which gives this part of the village its special character Planners should put the views of residents before those of devleopers This is only the first stage of a much larger development Loss of established trees would destroy character of the village No mention is made of Tawny Owls Loss of daylight and sunlight to south facing bedroom and ground flood windows, less than 12m away. Why are we building on green land within the Conservation Area We do not need another children’s play area. It is totally unsuitable Whilst a further pavement is welcomed , its introduction would have a detrimential effect on the ability of 2 meeting vehicles to squeeze past each other and the adjacent parked cars There is no safe walking route to Meadowdale Primary School, consequently children will be driven to school , further adding to traffic in the village Contrary to ‘directing new development away from ‘undeveloped land of importance’ Creeping coalescence Great Bowden is in the process of developing its Neighbourhood Plan The community has come under siege from developers who have no interest in the long term future of the village Great Bowden will become a suburb of Market Harborough before long Show us a plan of how the needs of these new residents will be met before destroying ours There are currently 468 dwellings in the village, committed development is completely disproportionate Development contravenes Policy HS/8 There is insufficient infrastructure in place to meet the needs of these additional residents Raising houses up to avoid flooding, will look very strange – not in keeping with the rest of the village The housing shortfall could be satisfied on land where less environmental harm would arise Any development in this location would result in a narrow strip of countryside remaining and diminish the sense of separation and increase the tendency towards coalescence The importance of Area of Separation was confirmed by the Council’s 2011 Area of Separation 2011 Review The relevant policies and what they seek to achieve are still highly relevant The trees provide an important part of the setting of the village Great Bowden has sound proposals for how the village should evolve to meet its housing needs in the future and knows better than any developer how this can be achieved whilst preserving the integrity of our ancient and beautiful village The EAs surface water flood map 1 in 30 years clearly demonstrates that the site is at the 1 in 30 year flood risk Development would go against national policy and guidance eon flood risk Development does not comply with Great Bowden Village Design Statement It would be undemocratic and ethically wrong to make any more decisions on large developments before the Neighbourhood Plan has been completed Development will damage eco-systems The worst place in the village to build more houses Developers will continue to be attracted to this attractive village, due to house prices and Great Bowden is in real danger of being changed forever in order to profit a few The arrangement of the houses is not sympathetic to neighbouring dwellings. The estate is too densely packed together The planning department should reject this purely financial speculative application My property shares a border with the site. It is 5.3m away from my living room windows. Further, my first floor studio that has a fully glazed elevation will look directly onto garden and rear windows of the suggested new dwellings
5.24 Great Bowden Academy
Objects to the application:
o A lack of provision for the education of the children moving into the development
o A lack of transparency about this situation on the part of the developer
o The resulting necessity for some of these families to drive out through the village each day for school and work
o The inevitable increase in traffic through the village, which is already congested and which will further jeopardise the safety of those children trying to reach Great Bowden Academy
o The effect of the situation on the social cohesion of the village.
5.25 Great Bowden Academy Parent Teacher Association (PTA)
Objects to the application. The school does not have the infrastructure or capacity to accommodate the extra children. We currently house 129 children within Great Bowden Academy. The School is restricted to 20 admissions each new intake owing to health and safety constraints. We currently have no capacity for new children moving into the area within each year group let alone those being introduced through new housing developments.
Children in the village will be split between a number of schools which are already near capacity. Ultimately this will only cause divide amongst the villagers and erode the strong community spirit of the village and potentially isolate children. This will also add to car travel to and from schools contributing to CO2 emissions.
5.26 Great Bowden Pre-School
We currently have 58 children attending the village Pre School. The children all arrive at the same session time, either 9am or 12.15pm for afternoon sessions... I feel that further cars along this road, combined with more parked cars from visitors to the new terrace houses will increase the danger to Pre School children who, being used to the current level of village traffic, will be exposed to an unnecessary increased risk of accidents
5.27 The Trustees of Great Bowden Village Hall Management Committee
The hall was built in 1902 and sits in the heart of our conservation village. It has served the village and the wider community very well over the years. It is used morning, afternoons and evenings almost every day of the week, a real community asset. To date, the hall has sat in an enclosed paddock used solely for agricultural use. The application proposes a pedestrian access from the development through the paddock at the side of the village hall to the gated entrance on Dingley Road; In addition it proposes to locate Recreational Play Area between the pedestrian access and the village hall. For the first time, these proposals will bring the public into close proximity with the village hall. This gives us concerns over noise, security, safety and maintenance aspects of the hall and the potential impact on our regular users.
5.28 The Friends of Great Bowden Cemetery:
Concerns over attenuation basin Flooding of fields
5.29 Great Bowden Heritage and Archaeology Group
Oppose the application on the grounds of:
The proposed housing is in the centre of an ancient and historical area of Great Bowden
It will greatly alter the setting of the Grade 1 listed church and surrounding Grade 2 listed buildings
The development would detract from the attractiveness of the village centre because of a large volume of modern buildings opposite the 13th century church and churchyard
The adjacent road is a dangerous road
The road and area is prone to flooding
Amendment A
Public comments: Overdevelopment of the village This development together with Berry Close and Welham Lane = 30% increase on current housing in the village Still object to this development. The access has not altered There is zero support for developing this part of the village Additional information does little to overcome our long term concerns We can not support this application regardless of how few homes are approved Amendments do not address my objections Where is the construction traffic going to park? Solitude of cemetery will be lost Impact on outlook Use brownfield sites – Pears and Bowden Fencing The revisions fail to address the issues Increasing the height of the foundations to overcome flooding makes the scheme even more detrimential The full impact of 120 houses has yet to be felt by the village The revised plans are designed to influence the planning officer decision not to improve the current local community conditions Continuted loss of privacy and light even with the proposed buffer planting; property currently enjoys a rural aspect and will become part of a suburban development Potential vandalism problems to nearby buildings and houses associaited with the car park.
5.30 Great Bowden Pre School
As the manager of the Pre School I am extremely concerned about the development and the danger that the increased traffic poses to the Pre School. Additionally I feel the pedestrian access in a dangerous crossing point and looks to involve the use of the Church Hall gateway which is regularly used by cars
5.31 Great Bowden Academy PTA
Having reviewed the revised plans we still feel that all of the original issues still stand
5.32 Great Bowden Village Hall Management Committee
Still object to the application on the grounds it will have a negative impact on the hall and our users. We are pleased that the recreational play area has been removed but the issues of maintenance, security, noise and potential expansion of the hall raised in our previous objection letter are still of concern.
Amendment B
Public comments: Inadequate access given the narrow nature of the existing road and difficulties caused by the one road parking of the adjacent dwellings Increased traffic in Dingley Road and through already congested village centre Access to the Church, playgroup and the cemetery would be seriously compromised Great Bowden lacks the resources and infrastructure to deal with extra people and vehicles The site is prone to flooding and the development may lead to flooding elsewhere The latest revised plans has not altered our previous strong objections made All 17 dwellings will be viewable (in whole or part) by one or more of the 11 listed buildings and/or structures that surround the proposed development site. Trees and vegetation will not screen the proposed development during late autumn, winter and early spring. How many more heritage assets does one need to have to reject this application? At present the cemetery is a place of peace for quiet reflection and contemplation which will be completely destroyed by the sounds and activities of normal daily life from the adjacent development. From the current extension of the cemetery there is an uninterrupted view to Great Bowden’s Church Green and several listed properties that surround The Green, this view will be completely lost should this development go ahead. Plot 9 is raised 1.5m above the existing ground level Plot 10 is placed less than 5m away from the Gunnsbrook Removal of 70m of mature hedgerow to provide proposed visibility splays Visibility splays will be reduced by at least 10m looking westwards by traffic approaching on the wrong side of the road due to the number of parked cars Plots 1 to 4 look like a shower/toilet block. They do not reflect the mud barn on Sutton Road which was demolished over 12 months ago Plots 1-4 will seriously compromise the setting of the Grade 1 listed Parish Church and Grade II listed Church Hall. The open view through the listed gate pillars will be completely blocked off by a 1.8m high brick wall and vast expanse of roof I oppose the amended scheme. Grounds for objection remain substantially the same There has already been approval of 125 homes in the last year Reduced privacy, increased noise, light intrusion; reduced sunlight The increased paddock levels are a lot higher than our ground level Why is such a high roof pitch required for Plots 1 and 2 but not needed for 3 and 4? Potential for dormer windows in future? Concerned about what Plot 1 garden will be used for as oversized for size of Plot? How are we mean to maintain our property and outhouses in future? Please can we have clarification over the landscape buffer? The carports are unsightly Traffic calming measures are a waste of time and money Flooding will not be resolved by directing the floodwater into the next field along to the River Welland, Not when the River Welland is full and has not got anywhere to go Our listed building was built in 1672 and whilst we understand we don’t ‘own’ the view, the setting would be irrevocably changed from how it has been for centuries The documents refer to ‘realign’ the Gunnsbrook but no mention of how this will be achieved. The Gunnsbrook runs alongside our garden Our property will be surrounded by development, more reminiscent of an urban area Given the size of the land there is little sense in cramming the majority of new properties into small plots No more houses in Great Bowden Construction traffic Cemetery is an important quiet area Inappropriate building materials Number 44A will be surrounded by new properties with insufficient separation between old and new. Would be pressure to remove trees from the proposed tiny gardens Ditch ownership and proposed new fence positions Some plots are crammed next to existing properties whilst others are allocated generous space and are more fitting in terms of preservation or wildlife. Greenfield site Damage the entrance to this historic village Strain on infrastructure Flooding from unmanaged water causeways Architectural significance of schedule monuments and buildings Loss of privacy and noise invasion Erosion of open space and green spaces Reduction in arable grazing land Precedent set for development of more rural green spaces Insufficient space to allow access and egress by fire and refuse vehicles Greater traffic movements Dingley Road is not suitable for HGVs. Bus service 33 is not an appropriate service to RSA and service 44 is limited size Accidents on Dingley Road not been followed up. The village hall is not the only community building available.
Petition
5.33 A Petition with 23 signatures was submitted 16th January 2017. The Petition says:
5.34 The Applicant has provided the following response to this petition:
“The petition states:
As you aware we did not attend this meeting and despite our best efforts we have not been able to convince the Parish Council to allow us to present to all the local residents. I have also, on numerous occasions, offered my personal telephone numbers and have welcomed approaches from residents.
I have attached all documents provided at the meeting on the 15 January. The first 3 are the presentation boards and the last document was circulate to all residents held on their data base prior to this meeting. Nowhere within this document have we stated that we ‘have consulted with the residents who will be affected by the building plans’. All I can find amongst the information that refers to consultation is the following text:
We are not claiming to have liaised with all residents affected or all the residents of Great Bowden, although of course we would have been happy to do so. From the outset I have tried as you know very hard to engage with the Parish Council (the recognised way of reaching out to as many residents as possible) but this has been turned down at every step. We have though managed to speak to a number of Parish Councillors and residents. We have met with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Neighbourhood Planning Committee and have also exchanged many emails and a number of telephone conversations. We have also met with the Trustees for the Village Hall. You have kept us very up to date with all the meetings you have had with the residents, and it is via you that we have received may of the residents comments. On this basis we’ve made a huge amount of amendments to the scheme and supplied additional information when requested.
Turning to Janet Pelling, we certainly haven’t singled Janet out but we have been happy to meet with her at her home to listen to her concerns. We have sympathised with Janet and amended our scheme accordingly. Janet’s comments have significantly altered our scheme - loss of one dwelling, reorientation of others, changes to the boundary treatment, reduction in size of the remaining units, loss of the foot path, introduction of a buffer zone, and finally an offer to transfer part of the buffer zone to Janet. At no point have we mention Janet by name in our documents and therefore I am not sure where the comments, a copy of which I’ve included below, have come from? I am surprised at the number of residents signing this petition when they cannot be certain of the facts. In addition to our first meeting with Janet, we have kept in touch and I have a record of all conversations and emails, with the last being received on 12 January 2017. I would be more than happy to provide you will copies if required.
I would be very grateful if you take account of this email and ensure that the planning committee do not assume the statement made in this petition is a statement of fact. As I mentioned above I can provide further evidence to justify all points raised within this email.”
Residents Objection Report 16/00802/FUL
5.35 On 13th February 2017, a ‘Residents Objection Report 16/00802/FUL’ was submitted. The Report has been prepared by and signed by residents of Dingley Road, Knights End Road and The Green.
5.36 The Report provides a historical background of Great Bowden and then explains how and why the development will an impact upon Heritage; Traffic, Flooding, Re- alignment of the Gunnsbrook, Great Bowden Cemetery and Ecology. The Report contains photographic and appeal decisions evidence.
6. Planning Policy Considerations
6.1 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that:
“Where in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the Development Plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material consideration indicates otherwise.”
6.2 Unless stated, an explanation of the development plan polices; material considerations, evidence base and other documents referred to can be found at the beginning of the Agenda under ‘All Agenda Items Common Planning Policy’ a) Development Plan
6.3 The current Local Development Plan consists the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2006-2028 (adopted November 2011) and Saved Policies of the Harborough District Local Plan (adopted 2001).
Harborough District Core Strategy
6.4 The following aspects of the CS are notably relevant to this application.
Policy CS1
“To maintain the District’s unique rural character whilst ensuring that the needs of the community are met through sustainable growth and suitable access to services, the spatial strategy for Harborough District to 2028 is to:
h) Safeguard the individual character of settlements, by maintaining in principle the separation between; Scraptoft and Thurnby, Great Bowden and Market Harborough, Lubenham and Market Harborough, Bitteswell, Magna Park and Lutterworth and Sutton in the Elms and Broughton Astley;
Policy CS2 Policy CS3 Policy CS5 Policy CS8 Policy CS9 Policy CS10 Policy CS11 Policy CS12 Policy CS13
f) The principle of a separation area between Great Bowden and Market Harborough will be maintained…to ensure the retention of identity and distinctiveness of neighbouring settlements. Policy CS17
The saved polices of the Harborough District 2001 Local Plan
6.5 Of the limited number policies that remain extant, Policy HS/8 (Limits to Development) and Policy EV/3 are relevant to this application
Harborough District Emerging Local Plan
6.6 Harborough Districts’ new Local Plan will set out planning policies in the district up to 2031
6.7 A Pre-submission draft Local Plan is currently under preparation. It is anticipated that following approval by Council this draft Plan will be published for a minimum period of six weeks for any interested parties to make representations on the ‘soundness’ of that draft Plan. This is expected in summer 2017.
6.8 The Local Plan has undergone an Options consultation. It proposes a criteria-based approach to development at the edge of villages. The September 2015 Local Plan Options consultation identifies a range of 24 to 114 dwellings by allocation at Great Bowden. The range depends on which strategic option is chosen.
6.09 The Options consultation was informed by a Settlement Profile Background Paper which acknowledged that Great Bowden has sufficient Key Services to be a Rural Centre, but owing to its proximity to Market Harborough does not perform the role of a Rural Centre and therefore its prior classification as a SRV was retained. It is therefore considered by the Options Paper that Great Bowden is potentially a more sustainable settlement than currently recognised by adopted planning policy.
6.10 The emerging Local Plan carries limited weight at the present time.
Great Bowden Neighbourhood Plan
6.11 Great Bowden Parish Council applied for the designation of a Neighbourhood Area on 29th September 2015 under the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012.
6.12 The application was published for a 6 week period ending on 27 November 2015 and was approved by the Portfolio Holder for Planning Services on 5 December 2015. Work is currently ongoing with the Neighbourhood Plan, however the Plan is yet to reach the pre-submission consultation stage (Regulation 14). The Neighbourhood Plan carries limited weight at the present time.
6.13 The Neighbourhood Plan Advisory Group has made the following comments to the application (22/2/17).
‘We don't feel that it's appropriate for us to make comments directly concerning this application but are glad of the opportunity to give you the current status of our plan and some general statements relating to the contents of the plan. It should be appreciated that our plan is not, as yet, in the public domain. Great Bowden's Neighbourhood Plan is nearing the completion of its first draft and it is expected to be submitted to HDC in week beginning the 6th March to ensure that it meets HDC's strategic policies. After this, we intend to hold another open meeting to give residents and stakeholders a further chance to make comments prior to the submission of our plan for a 6 weeks stakeholders' and residents' consultation. Our plan is comprehensive and covers the built environment, the natural environment, community facilities & amenities and transport. Great Bowden's Neighbourhood Plan does not allocate any sites for immediate development. This is because of the high number of commitments and completions since April 2016 which means that Great Bowden's housing quota has been significantly exceeded. Great Bowden is expanding rapidly and is likely to grow by 30% within the first three years that this plan is in force. This is due to planning approvals of several housing developments during the 18 months period that Great Bowden’s Neighbourhood Plan was being developed. As a consequence, our plan includes policies that support the provision of new or the extension of existing community amenities and facilities. Furthermore, the plan supports traffic management solutions to address the impact of additional traffic arising separately or cumulatively from developments within Great Bowden including safe routes to school. As Great Bowden has a long historical heritage, it’s important that this heritage is protected by ensuring that important buildings are listed and important green spaces and views are protected.’ b) Material Planning Considerations
6.14 Material Planning Considerations relevant to this application are:
The National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework / NPPF)
National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes 3, 9-11, 13 & 16 (adopted 2003)
Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement
SHMA (2014)
HEDNA (2017)
Great Bowden Village Design Statement (2000)
The Statement “will assist in the management of change and ensure new development is appropriate to its surroundings and in keeping with local character (p.3)”
p. 4/5 of the Statement advises: “It is vital that the Separation Area between Market Harborough and Great Bowden is retained…”
p.7 “The collective environment of open green spaces, trees and buildings and the various views into the village and out over the surrounding countryside…is regarded as an important asset to the village. These views should be respected by any development”
“Future development must relate well to the existing built form of the settlement and should be if an individual and sympathetic design. Standardised designs should be avoided.
Previous Committee Decisions, Appeal Decisions and Judgements
Welham Lane, Great Bowden (15/01801/OUT)
Committee agreed (March 2016) with Officers to approve an outline application for up to 50 dwellings as the proposal was judged to represent sustainable development in accordance with the Framework. There were no adverse impacts which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.
Berry Close, Great Bowden (15/01425/OUT)
Committee agreed (December 2015) with Officers to refuse an Outline application for up to 70 dwellings. The Appeal (APP/F2415/W/16/3144470) was Allowed (08.08.16)
The Inspector concluded:
The Court of Appeal gave judgement on 18th February 2014 in Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Limited v East Northamptonshire District Council and Others [2014] and was also re-iterated in Forge Field Society v Sevenoaks DC [2014] on 12th June 2014 that where an LPA finds harm to the setting of a listed building or to a conservation area it gives rise to ‘a strong presumption against planning permission being granted’.
“The presumption is a statutory one. It is not irrebuttable. It can be outweighed by material considerations powerful enough to do so. But an authority can only properly strike the right balance between harm to a heritage asset on the one hand and planning benefits on the other if it is conscious of the statutory presumption in favour of preservation, and if it demonstrably applies that presumption to the proposal it is considering”
Officer comment: Taken together these cases emphasise the considerable weight that decision makers must apply to the preservation of the settings of listed buildings and conservation areas in planning decisions. It is clear that decision makers must consciously acknowledge any harm arising. Specifically then attach ‘considerable weight’ to this. And only then assess whether there are compelling reasons that outweigh the harm identified that allow permission to be granted.
The onus is now clearly on the applicant to demonstrate sufficiently powerful material considerations exist and are relevant/necessary to justify harm. This includes showing that alternative options have been explored and ruled out that would otherwise avoid the resulting harm to the asset(s).
The High Court gave judgement on 4th March 2016 to consider how NPPF 49 and 14 operate where there is less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset in NPPF paragraph 134 terms. The judgment of the High Court in Forest of Dean District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & another [2016] EWHC 421 (Admin), agreeing with the arguments of the Council and the Secretary of State, was that where a proposal causes less than substantial harm to a listed building, the presumption in favour of granting development is disapplied.
Officer comment: This is relevant to the current application as it shows how the paragraph 14 is applied in circumstances where less than substantial harm to heritage assets is identified.
The Court of Appeal gave judgment on 17th March 2016 in the combined appeals of Suffolk Coastal District Council v. Hopkins Homes Limited and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and Richborough Estates Partnership LLP v. Cheshire East Borough Council and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWCA Civ. 168 addressing the meaning and effect of Paragraph 49 of the NPPF. Among other things, it held that ‘[relevant] policies for the supply of housing’, meant ‘relevant policies that affect the supply of housing’ and so including:
‘[…]policies whose effect is to influence the supply of housing land by restricting the locations where new housing may be developed—including, for example, policies for the Green Belt, policies for the general protection of the countryside, policies for conserving the landscape of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks, policies for the conservation of wildlife or cultural heritage, and various policies whose purpose is to protect the local environment in one way or another by preventing or limiting development’ (Lindblom LJ, para [33]).
Officer comment: Paragraph 49 is relevant as the Council are currently not able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing.
The High Court gave judgement on 9th June 2016 in R (Wright) v Forest of Dean District Council [2016] EWHC 1349 (Admin) which re-affirms a fundamental principle of planning law that, as Lloyd LJ put it in City of Bradford Metropolitan Council v Secretary of State [1987] 53 P&CR 55, “planning consent cannot be bought or sold”.
Officer comments:
1. The Court quashed a planning permission for a wind turbine in the Forest of Dean because, in granting the permission, the Council unlawfully took account of promised annual “community donations” from the operator of the turbine to the local community
2. The donations – promised by the applicant to total between £500,000 - £1,100,000 – were to be administered through a Community Benefit Society formed under the Co- operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014. The Council accepted that the donations had been taken into account in granting the permission. The question for the Court was whether that approach was lawful.
3. Dove J conducted an extensive review of the authorities on the materiality of “off-site benefits” in planning applications, finding that:
o To be material, the donations had to serve a planning purpose and be “fairly and reasonably related to the development proposed”.
o However, there were no particular community benefits to which these donations had to be applied. They could be used for anything, provided that it benefitted the local community in some way.
o That did not meet the test for materiality in the case law. The donations were not designed to ameliorate or address any kind of adverse impact of the development.
o Although the various “community matters” to which the donations could have been target are covered in passages of the NPPF, that is not enough to make them material planning considerations. The proper test for materiality remained the approach in Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] A.C. 578.
This judgement is relevant to this application as the Council have considered what can lawfully be taken into account when determining the application.
Appeal decisions for Land south of Nanpanton Road, Loughborough, Leicestershire (Appeal A APP/X2410/W/15/3028159 and Appeal B APP/X2410/W/15/3028161) dated 16/1/17. The Inspector considered how paragraph 14 is applied, in circumstances where a specific policy in the Framework (in this case a valued landscape para 109) indicated that development should be restricted. The Inspector stated the following:
‘…I consider that the first bullet point of paragraph 109 of the Framework is a specific Framework policy that indicates that development should be restricted, and so the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply here because I have found that the site is a valued landscape. Therefore, the planning balance that applies in determining these appeals is a straightforward balancing exercise of weighing the benefits of the proposed development against the harm, having regard to the three dimensions to sustainable development, as set out in paragraphs 6-10 of the Framework, as it was put at the Inquiry, without applying a ‘tilt’ in favour of the grant of planning permission.’ (para 45-46)
Officer comment: This appeal is relevant to this application as it shows how paragraph 14 is applied, when specific policies in the Framework, in this case designated heritage assets, indicate development should be restricted.
c) Emerging Local Plan Evidence Base
6.15 The following emerging local plan evidence base is relevant to this application
Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment Great Bowden is detailed in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 2015 as having capacity for 349 dwellings in the period to 2031.
The Site is identified within the SHLAA (reference A/GB/HSG/06) as ‘Land off Knights End road (north), Great Bowden. The SHLAA refers to a much larger site than the one currently put forward
The SHLAA advises the site as being developable for residential development. Clarity regarding access arrangements and a change in the current Area of Separation policy (due to be reviewed as part of the new Local Plan) would be needed to reclassify the site as deliverable, as defined by the NPPF.
Harborough District Landscape Character Assessment (2007)
Market Harborough Landscape Character Assessment and Capacity Study (April 2009; The Landscape Partnership)
The site falls within the Foxton to Great Bowden Slopes Landscape Character Area. Part of the site is within landscape parcel 10 which is identified as having ‘Medium High’ landscape capacity to accommodate development in future.
Area of Separation Review (2011)
The Review was produced by HDC in December 2011 to assess the boundaries of Areas of Separation and suggest appropriate new boundaries that take into account the spatial strategy for the District, as well as proposed development within the Core Strategy. The site falls within Parcel C of the Market Harborough and Great Bowden Area of Separation and it is recommended within the report that it should be considered for allocation within an Area of Separation (with possible amendments to detailed boundaries).
Officer Note: It should be noted this document is currently being reviewed as part of the evidence for the New Local Plan and its conclusions may therefore change. However, the revised document is currently not in the public domain and as such no weight can currently be attached to it. d) Other Relevant Documents
6.16 The following documents should be noted:
The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, S.I. No.948 (as amended)
Circular 11/95 Annex A - Use of Conditions in Planning Permission
ODPM Circular 06/2005 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System)
Manual for Streets (2007) & Manual for Streets 2 (2010)
Building for Life 12 (BFL12) (2012)
Leicestershire County Council Planning Obligations Policy (December 2014)
Leicestershire County Council Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3)
Leicestershire County Council Highways Authority 6Cs (Highways) Design Guide
Harborough District Council’s Provision for Open Space, Sport & Recreation (2009)
Harborough District Council’s Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (January 2017)
e) Other Relevant Information
o Reason for Committee Decision
6.17 This application is to be determined by Planning Committee because the proposal is for more than 10 dwellings.
7. Assessment a) Principle of Development
7.1 The site is located beyond the village limits which is protected from development by Saved Local Plan Policy HS/8 (2001); Core Strategy Policy CS2(a) and CS17(a) (2011) and in a designated Area of Separation (AoS) which is likewise protected by Saved Local Plan Policy EV/3 (2001). CS1 and CS13 reflect EV/3 in retaining the principle of an area of separation between the two settlements, namely, Great Bowden and Market Harborough. CS11 (b) refers to the context of sites and their wider local environment and states that new development should be directed away from undeveloped areas of land which are important to the form and character of a settlement.
7.2 In accordance with Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004, the conflict with development plan policy requires the application to be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
7.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) is such a material consideration.
7.4 HDC cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Paragraph 49 of the Framework provides that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered to be up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.
7.5 Policies EV/3, HS/8, CS2 (a), CS11 (b) and CS17 (a) are relevant in this regard. Therefore for decision-taking, paragraph 14 of the Framework provides that the presumption in favour of sustainable development means that permission should be granted unless; any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole (Limb 1), or specific Framework policies indicate that the development should be restricted (Limb 2). Footnote 9 gives examples of those policies. One of those policies is identified as relating to "designated heritage assets".
7.6 The reference to designated heritage assets in footnote 9 means that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is not triggered unless the proposal can first pass the simple balancing exercises in paragraph 133 (in cases where any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset is judged to be substantial) or 134 (where any harm is less than substantial).
7.7 As such, in terms of decision-making, an assessment is first required as to whether any harm is caused to the significance of the designated heritage assets affected. If any harm is found, then the degree of that harm needs to be defined. Then, that harm needs to be balanced against the public benefits of the proposal. If the public benefits do not outweigh the harm, planning permission should be refused for the proposal, having regard to the Development Plan and Statute.
7.8 If the public benefits outweigh the harm caused to the significance of the designated heritage assets, then paragraph 14 would be re-engaged. That would mean that in terms of the Framework, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the polices in the Framework, taken as whole.
7.9 Decision-takers, in this instance the LPA, are also required by the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the (listed) building or its setting or any features of architectural or historic interest which it possess (Section 66(1)) and to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area in relation to conservation areas (Section 72 (1)).
7.10 Mirroring those provisions, to a large extent, paragraph 132 of the Framework maintains that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. It goes on to note that significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset, or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. b) Heritage Assets
Listed Buildings
7.11 As can be seen from the map below there are a number of listed buildings within close proximity to the site.
7.12 A pair of Grade II listed gate posts and the associated wall are located at the far western edge of the proposed development site, flanking the access point off Dingley Road.
Dingley Road gate posts (Grade II)
7.13 Another Grade II listed house and its associated lean-to extension border the boundary of the proposed development site on Knight’s End Road (No.27).
27 Knights End Road (Grade II)
7.14 Adjacent to the site to the north-west, the Village Hall (Grade II) dates from the 19th century. North of the site and Dingley Road is situated the Grade I Church of St Peter and St Paul with its earliest construction features dating to the 13th century AD and in its present form generally originating in the 15th century. A hall and cross wing house at 9 Dingley Road (Grade II) has its earliest origins in 17th century, with much subsequent alterations and a series of buildings including the school, the vicarage and 11 Dingley Road date from the 18th and 19th centuries (Grade II).
7.15 Within the historic settlement core of Great Bowden itself a cluster of listed buildings nucleated around the Green are recorded. To the west of the site at a distance of around 125m and distributed to the east of The Green are situated another cluster of 18th and 19th century listed red brick houses and cottages and an outbuilding (numbers 43, 44, 45 all Grade II). Further south along Knights End Road, another red brick house dates to 1809 (number 27). A cluster of four red brick houses all dating from the 18th century are found between 200m and 250m south-west of the site (numbers 1, 5 and 7).
o Conservation Area
7.16 As can also be seen form the map above, the site partially overlaps the Great Bowden conservation area, thus the proposed development will directly impact on both the conservation area and its setting. National and local planning policy does not prohibit new development within a conservation area but does stipulate that such development should ‘make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness’ (Framework para 131).
7.17 The Great Bowden conservation area was originally designated by Harborough District Council in 1974 and generally follows the east-west axis of the village along Main Street before extending to incorporate the north-east corner of the village and an area to the south along Station Road.
7.18 The Great Bowden Conservation Area Character Statement says amongst other things:
“It consists of a network of greens and of open spaces crossed by roads with many older buildings set back from the roads and behind the greens or former edges of the greens. The large number of trees, in the churchyard and on the greens and along the roads, is a characteristic of the settlement.”
“Although the whole area is large and extensive it is this breaking up into many small intimate areas that gives Great Bowden its character”
“Great Bowden manifests the juxtaposition of the affluent and the humble: by the large houses and small cottages, by the use of brick and stone next to mud and simple timber framing.”
o Victorian Cemetery
7.19 Adjacent to the site’s eastern boundary is Great Bowden Cemetery. The cemetery was formed in 1879. This historic burial ground seems to follow the Victorian pattern of locating such places outside settlements to allow quiet contemplation and address health concerns. It has a degree of significance by virtue of its age and its role in the social development of the village and meets the definition of a non-designated heritage asset set out in the NPPF.
o Earthwork and Archaeological remains
7.20 The site contains former ridge and furrow cultivation, which is orientated north-south in the southern two fields and the southwest corner of a rectangular earthwork in the north-east corner of the site. The surviving ridge and furrow is a remnant of what was once an extensive field system.
7.21 In addition there is an apparent moated platform occupying the north-eastern Dingley Road corner of the development area (proposed for retention within the scheme; ULAS 2016-117, Fig. 3, feature A).
o Harm to Heritage Assets
7.22 The Planning Statement submitted with the original proposal for 29 dwellings repeats the conclusion within Issue 1 of the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) that: “the proposed development of the site at Dingley Road as a whole does not cause harm the identified heritage assets, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. The proposals respect the principles of conservation as defined by Historic England…and therefore protects the Conservation Area and other identified heritage assets from harm”.
The latest version of the HIA (Issue 3, January 2017) concludes “the proposed development of the site at Dingley Road preserves the identified special interest of the heritage assets”
7.23 Officers strongly disagree with both these conclusions and those drawn by ULAS (within the submitted Archaeological desk-based assessment) on behalf of the Applicant.
7.24 ULAS (May, 2016), using the latest guidance from Historic England, assessed the impact on the setting of the Conservation Area and Listed buildings on behalf of the Applicant. ULAS came to the following conclusions:
Step1 Identification of which Heritage assets and their setting are affected.
The potential impact on the setting of the Conservation Area to the west and Listed buildings was assessed. There are mature hedges along the outer boundaries and inner sub-divisions of the Application area and housing to the west so the Conservation area and Listed buildings are currently well screened.
Step 2 Assess whether, how and to what degree these settings make a contribution to the heritage asset.
The current setting of the Conservation Areas to the west is consistent with villages with surrounding rural landscapes so making a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset
Step 3: assess the effects of the proposed development, whether beneficial or harmful on that significance.
The development will have medium impact on the setting of the Conservation Area and the Listed buildings to the west and through the loss of some of its agricultural and pastoral setting. However the development will not cause serious harm as it is already masked from the heritage assets by existing hedgerow and vegetation. ULAS conclude:
“The impact on the setting of the listed buildings and the conservation area will be limited and following DMRB (2009) criteria would be low adverse before mitigation and neutral following mitigation”
7.25 In terms of archaeological remains, ULAS concludes:
“it is likely that it (the development) would impact significantly upon the ridge and furrow and other identified earthworks and any underlying archaeological remains which may be present.
The sites proximity to the historic core of the village, in relation to nearby archaeology and of that within the confines of the site and the continuity of the land as pasture suggest that the development is likely to have a major adverse impact on any underlying archaeological remains.
The main constraint upon the development is likely to be the presence of the well preserved ridge and furrow, a remnant of a wider field system once in existence, across the south of the site and the possible building platform earthworks in the northeast although it is understood that the latter will remain as open space”.
7.26 Officers note that Historic England did not ‘wish to comment in detail’ on the application, but did offer “the following general observations”:
“We note the supporting information including the Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Area Assessment. In assessing the impact of this proposal on the significance of the designated and non designated heritage assets identified, including the Grade I listed Church of St Peter and St Paul, the Grade II* Old Rectory and the Great Bowden conservation area, the contribution of this undeveloped site to the significance of these heritage assets requires thorough assessment. In addition, the historic use of the site and association with the listed Grade II gate piers is unclear.
We also refer you to your authority's conservation area statement and to your local plan policies and defined Area of Separation. For guidance on setting, we refer you to the Planning Practice Guidance and the Historic Environment Good Practice in Planning Note 2-3.
We would urge you to address the above issues, and recommend that the application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice. It is not necessary for us to be consulted again”
7.27 The Case Officer is of the view that the development will result in less than substantial harm to designated and non-designated assets.
7.28 Officers have received the following comments on the application (based on Amendment B) from both County Conservation (Principal Historic Buildings Officer) and Archaeology (Principal Archaeologist).
County Conservation
“I am unaware that the relevant legislation and national planning policy has altered materially since my previous formal consultation response and I believe, therefore, that my earlier observations in respect of these continue to be appropriate. Several Planning Appeal decisions and Judicial Reviews have, however, been identified which, whilst not necessarily completely comparable, appear to include a number of similar factors, attaching considerable value to an unspoilt rural edge to a historic village for example, and confirm that great weight must be given by the decision making authority, in most circumstances, to proposals which could harm listed buildings and conservation areas. The importance attached to these issues can apparently be higher than ‘generic benefits’, such as new housing provision, that could be achieved by other means or in a different location within a district.
I am pleased to acknowledge that the amendments to the proposed layout have, in some areas, lowered the impact of the residential development on the significance of the local designated heritage assets by ensuring that more of their countryside setting will be preserved. Reducing the number of dwellings, moving the development away from the junction with Dingley Road and retaining more of the existing planting is particularly beneficial. I also note that an attempt has been made to echo a traditional farmstead that is more sympathetic to the rural surroundings in this part of the development. Even a relatively sensitively detailed design is likely to only partially mitigate against the considerable, permanent impact of a new housing scheme and engineered highway on the established setting of the nearby listed buildings and conservation area.
I regret the intrusion into the existing view of the countryside from between the listed gate piers on Dingley Road but recognise it could be difficult to sustain an argument against the erection of any development where historic maps clearly show a building existed previously.
The outlying Victorian cemetery appears to have a degree of significance by virtue of its age and its role in the social development of the village and I continue to believe that this asset will be compromised by building so close to its boundary. A terrace of buildings, usually considered to be an urban form of development, seems particularly inappropriate in this context; it is at odds with the rest of the lower density layout and will extend the development beyond the new access road eastwards into the countryside.
I appreciate that one of Great Bowden’s distinct characteristics is its informal, triangular village greens but any attempt to justify the new terrace through the artificial creation of a new one, of a different shape, overlooking a piece of land which is undevelopable because of archaeological constraints on the rural edge of the settlement would, in my opinion, be contrived and could devalue the integrity of the original historic spaces.
A list of the benefits the developer wishes to be taken into account has been submitted. I note that ‘undeveloped land’ adjacent to the listed gate piers is to be transferred to the Parish Council or Village Hall Trust. I am unsure how this directly relates to the proposed scheme and in the absence of any detailed proposals it is difficult to confirm whether this change of use will be beneficial or acceptable, as the ‘undeveloped’ characteristic of the land currently contributes positively to the conservation area and listed buildings.
I agree with the conclusion in the submitted Heritage Impact Assessment that ‘the proposed new development will have an adverse impact on the rural setting of the northern section of the conservation area’s eastern edge, distancing the historic village core from the neighbouring fields’. This is particularly true on this side of the village where, in marked contrast to much of the settlement, there is a concentration of historic buildings near to the boundary. The close fundamental association between the agricultural land and village is more obvious in this part of Great Bowden and the introduction of modern, detached housing, even if care is taken to avoid overtly suburban designs, will erode this valuable attribute and increase the separation between the historic settlement and its established setting. I find it difficult, therefore, to give much weight to the claimed benefit linked to the ‘provisions of an exceptionally high quality development at a very low density, appropriate for this edge of village location’, particularly when as noted above the proposed houses which extend furthest into the countryside are laid out in a relatively high density terrace.
In my view the amended scheme will cause less harm to the historic environment of Great Bowden than the previous submission. I remain of the opinion that the development as a whole will still have a detrimental impact on the rural setting or significance of local designated and non-designated heritage assets and I would welcome further mitigation through design and a reduction in the number of houses. Whilst I believe that the level of harm to the significance of the heritage assets will be less than substantial this does not mean that it can be ignored and I hope that your authority will give it the appropriate weight when applying the relevant legislation and planning policy as part of the decision making process”.’
County Archaeology
7.29 “Looking at the results of the archaeological evaluation (ULAS Rep.: 2016-117), the final component of a staged programme of archaeological investigation (preceded by desk-based assessment, lidar and geophysical survey), the report identifies the presence of buried archaeological remains across much of the site dated to the medieval and early post-medieval periods, with however a strong presence of late Saxon to early medieval pottery, the latter most notably located in Field 2 to the south-west of the site, and potentially indicative of a discrete settlement focus. The pottery is complemented by a good quality animal bone assemblage, the latter also raising the potential for preserved palaeo environmental remains (charred plant remains, etc.). Taken together the assemblage offers a strong potential for a rich and informative archaeological record.
Of the 18 trenches excavated, only 4 were devoid of significant results – Trenches 1- 3 and 17, suggesting that the eastern edge of the putative development area lies beyond the maximum extent of the historic village, within the open field system, as evidence by the Lidar Survey
In line with the NPPF, para. 129, the planning authority is required to consider the impact of the development upon any heritage assets, taking into account their particular archaeological and historic significance. The applicant has invested significant effort in bringing forward sufficient information to allow a proper understanding of the issues. In that context, it is evident that the development will results in the loss of, or substantial truncation to, well preserved and significant archaeological remain, as well as impacting upon the survival of preserved earthwork ridge and furrow remains. Effort has been made to reduce the critical impact upon the moated platform to the north, however, on balance it is considered that the scheme represent a significant and detrimental impact to the survival of this known heritage asset. The moated platform will become an isolated surviving earthwork fragment, divorced from its historical and archaeological context. Whilst it is accepted that this impact, and elsewhere across the development area, can be in part off-set by appropriate targeted archaeological investigation and recording, the process of excavation cannot sustain and conserve the amenity value, sense of place and identity offered by the surviving earthworks and their associated archaeological remains”
7.30 Paragraph 132 of the NPPF provides that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset great weight should e given to the asset’s conservation.
7.31 The Applicant disagrees with the less than substantial harm conclusion:
“It is fully accepted that the proposal would result in change to this part of the setting of the Conservation Area, but change does not equate to harm. We do not accept that less than substantial harm is caused”. This is a sensitively designed, high quality development at a very low density, incorporating substantial amounts of undeveloped space. The character or appearance of the Conservation Area would as a minimum be preserved, satisfying the statutory test at s72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990” (Applicant’s covering letter 16-1-17)
o Public Benefits
7.32 Paragraph 134 of the Framework says that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. This balance is ‘unweighted’, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply. On the one side is the level of identified harm to the heritage asset along with the great weight which should be given to its conservation and on the other the identifiable public benefits of the proposal.
7.33 The NPPG advises public benefits may follow from many developments and could be anything that delivers economic, social or environmental progress as described in the National Planning Policy Framework (Paragraph 7). Public benefits should flow from the proposed development. They should be of a nature or scale to be of benefit to the public at large and should not just be a private benefit. However, benefits do not always have to be visible or accessible to the public in order to be genuine public benefits.
7.34 The Applicant contends the development will result in the following public benefits:
7.35 In isolation of the material facts in relation to the setting of the above heritage assets, there is no doubt that wider public benefits would accrue from developing the land for residential development. In Officers opinion, such benefits include:
The contribution towards Harborough’s 5 year Housing Land Supply and the provision of 40% affordable housing. The market and affordable housing that the proposal would bring forward, must attract considerable weight in its favour.
Economic benefits involved in constructing the development, the economic benefits to village shops and commercial services through having a larger catchment population; additional Council Tax receipts for HDC and new Homes Bonus payments. Paragraph 18 of the Framework makes clear that the Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity. In that content, the economic benefits that the scheme would bring forward attract significant weight in favour too.
The proposal would also bring forward ecological enhancements for the site through additional planting of trees and shrubs and the provision of an attenuation pond enticing habitat creation. These enhancements also weigh moderately in favour of the proposal.
7.36 Conversely it could be argued that the preservation of the natural environment and heritage assets are of considerable public benefit for current and future generations.
7.37 Furthermore, the benefits outlined above in para 7.35 above are applicable to any area within Great Bowden (and any other site within the District itself) and this site is not the only potentially available site adjacent to limits to development of Great Bowden which could be developed and importantly would not have any impact on heritage assets (as evidenced by the SHLAA).
7.38 It should also be noted, Officers disagree with the Applicant that traffic calming measures, surface water management, buffer zones and low density/high quality development are public benefits. These are mitigation measures, which would otherwise not be necessary if it was not for the development itself. The cemetery extension and transfer of land to the village hall is discussed in more detail below.
o Cemetery extension and community land
7.39 The Site layout plan submitted under Amendments A and B indicate an area of land within the Applicant’s ownership (blue line) which could be transferred to the Council (via s106) to be used to extend Great Bowden cemetery in lieu of off-site Public Open Space contributions in the event the residential development is implemented. A full planning application for change of use of land has been submitted (16/01847/FUL) and is to be considered on the same Committee Agenda as this current application.
Cemetery extension
7.40 The applicant considers “the delivery of additional burial capacity is a specific objective of the Harborough Core Strategy, and accordingly there is a solid development plan basis for treating the cemetery extension as an appropriate CIL-compliant benefit arising from the wider residential development proposed”.
7.41 The Applicant was advised (via email, dated 14th November) that “there is no evidence as to why this particular application itself generates need for land for a cemetery extension and therefore why, if this application is approved, that could justify an obligation to deliver this extension. If the cemetery extension were granted permission it would not be reasonable or necessary to associate its delivery to the housing application in any way. They are separate applications, the housing does not require the delivery of the cemetery extension. The cemetery extension cannot be given weight in the housing application. The cemetery extension is a ‘nice to have’ only. Officers opinion is consistent with the June 2016 Forest of Dean judgement (referred to under Material Considerations, para 6.15 above).
7.42 The applicant proposes that the cemetery land is provided instead of the POS contributions. The application generates the need for various types of POS in accordance with policy CS8 and the Provision for Open Space Sport and Recreation 2015 (POSSR). This includes the provision of cemetery land (see Appendix A). The proposed cemetery land would be an over-provision; above what is required from the 17 dwellings. Thus the ‘excess’ is not ‘necessary’ and not CIL compliant and cannot therefore be taken into account in determining the planning application. Also, the provision of cemetery land in lieu of all 7 POS types, does not meet the need for the other 6 POS types generated by the development and therefore does not meet the requirements of policy.
Community land (undeveloped land)
7.43 Amendment B now shows the area of the site adjoining the village hall free from any built development, with previous suggestions of a play area or car park having being discounted. However, it has been suggested by the applicant that the vacant land shown on the plans as ‘undeveloped’ “is ideally situated to be put to a community use in the future” and refers to the letter from the Chairman of the Great Bowden Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan Advisory Committee in which he advises;
“The above requirement (for external space) has been identified during the process of developing our Neighbourhood Plan and will form part of this document. We would not wish the chance of fulfilling this requirement to be lost forever”.
The applicant further explains “it is sensible that the land is made available to be transferred to the community in the event that the proposed residential development proceeds. The transfer of the land can be addressed within a S106 obligation”.
7.44 Amendment B shows the vacant land as ‘undeveloped’. As such this is how it should be considered for the purposes of this application. The Applicant was advised that if they want the LPA to consider this land as ‘community use’; they need to explain what they mean by this use, as a community use encompasses several things; or if it is to be for a specific purpose e.g. external space for the village hall or to extend the village hall the Applicant should supply the details accordingly, as part of this application, together with any necessary assessments e.g. Heritage, Noise, Transport etc.
7.45 Furthermore, like the cemetery extension, there is no evidence as to why this application generates need for land for community use. Community Partnerships have advised Officers that this development would require community facilities financial contribution of either;
£8,466 for upgrading of existing facilities, or
£16,966 for new build of facilities (However the Parish Council would need to make a sound evidenced-based bid for new build facilities)
7.46 They further advised in relation to the transfer of land that this does not meet the definition of Community Facilities, which is defined as community / village hall indoor venues and indoor sports venues.
7.47 Much is made by the Applicant of the village hall not being able to expand – however the applicant does not own the land, they have an option. Therefore there is nothing preventing the Parish Council / Neighbourhood Plan Group or anybody else for that matter approaching the landowner themselves and asking whether they can purchase the land. Also, there are other community buildings in the village which could be expanded if necessary e.g. the Community Pavilion in the recreation ground.
7.48 The applicant has submitted a Draft S106 Planning Agreement and a letter from Shakespeare Martineau on behalf of the Applicant with regards to how the proposed obligations to secure land to extend and enhance existing cemetery and community facilities meet Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations.
7.49 The letter concludes:
7.50 Officers interestingly note that the concluding comments above say the planning obligations will ‘mitigate the impact of the development’, rather than provide ‘public benefits’, which is what the Applicant has been trying to argue since they had been advised that Officers were recommending refusal on the grounds of less than substantial harm.
7.51 The applicants Draft S106 refers to the Council having a period of 3 years in which to accept the community/undeveloped land, or if not accepted after 3 years, a payment of £23,382 will be made. If the community/undeveloped land is deliverable for a community purpose, then its value could exceed that of the required contribution (i.e. the sum specified in 7.45 above). The sum proposed by the applicant is well in excess of that required by the policy contribution. This ‘excess’ above the required sum, should not be taken into account in determining the application as this element is not fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind and would not be necessary to make the proposal acceptable in planning terms.
7.52 In Officers opinion, the proposed obligations towards the community/undeveloped land and cemetery land, over and above the policy requirement, are not required to mitigate the impact of the development and are a ‘nice to have’ only.
Conclusion
7.53 To conclude this matter, in Officers opinion, whilst there are justifiable public benefits of the proposal (as outlined in Para 7.35 above), they are insufficient to justify the harm caused to designated heritage assets. This is because the benefits are generic and would be much the same for any housing scheme of the scale proposed. Paragraph 132 of the Framework requires clear and convincing justification for any harm or loss of significance, as heritage assets are irreplaceable. In officer’s opinion the anticipated public benefits which can lawfully be taken into account do not outweigh the less than substantial harm identified to the heritage assets. Therefore, following the March 2016 Forest of Dean judgement (see para 6.15 above), having failed the paragraph 134 NPPF test the application should be refused.
7.54 However, in case either Members disagree with the above conclusions or the application is refused and the case is considered at appeal by an Inspector, it is deemed necessary to discuss a range of other matters relating to the application. b) Locational Sustainability o Services and Facilities
7.55 Great Bowden is identified in the Core Strategy (2011) as a Selected Rural Village based on its services and facilities. A list of local facilities and their approximate walking distance from the site centre via the existing footways and footpath network is included in Table 1, below:
.
Source: Transport Statement, MEC. May 2016 o Sustainable Modes of Travel
7.56 The site is well located to enable future residents to access the above services/facilities and those offered within Market Harborough by sustainable modes of transport,
By Cycle
7.57 National Cycle Network (NCN) Route 64 is located to the west of the site along Station Road. The route, which is mainly on-road, provides a connection to Market Harborough and Market Harborough Railway Station to the south and a connection to Melton Mowbray and wider afield to the north.
By Bus
7.58 The closest bus stop to the site is located along the northern side of Main Street, approximately 270 meters walking distance from the site centre to its west (a walk of approximately 3 minutes). The stop is a flag-and-pole stop with shelter provision and timetable information. Bus services 33 and 44 operate at this stop, with both services operating Monday to Saturday on an hourly frequency. A summary of the bus service operating within close proximity of the site can be found within table 2 below.
.
By Rail
7.59 Market Harborough Railway Station is situated approximately 1.4km to the south-west of the site. The station operates Monday-Sunday. A 24 hour car park is located at the station and provides 219 vehicle spaces. Cycle storage is also available at the station with 36 cycle stands provided to the rear of the booking hall, and on platform 1. The station, which is managed by East Midlands Trains, provides a link to the neighbouring stations of Leicester, Kettering and London St Pancras, as well as Nottingham and East Midlands Parkway, all within an hourly commute via rail. Bus service 44 operates directly at this station.
7.60 Policy CS5 supports new development that is located in areas well served by local services which reduces the need to travel for occupants. The above range of services are within a short walk west of the site and would be sufficient to meet the day to day needs of a village community and residents of the development will not be rely upon travel to other settlements for basic amenities.
7.61 Wider afield, the town centre of Market Harborough (circa 2.1km) offers a greater range of retail and employment opportunities and is within easy access via the local bus service which runs through the village. Ridgeway Primary School in Market Harborough is the next closest after Great Bowden, The Robert Smyth Academy in Market Harborough is the closest secondary school, around a 25 min walk
7.62 The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) recognises that rural housing is essential to ensure the viable use of local services. The additional population associated with the proposal would be likely to increase custom for the shop and patronage of the services on offer, thus enhancing the prospects of the future retention of these services.
7.63 Policy CS5 encourages new development to incorporate safe pedestrian and cycling facilities into the design. The supporting information submitted with the application advises the proposal would include a range of design features and measures to reduce the need for residents to travel and encourage use of sustainable transport measures including;
Provision of covered and secure cycle parking on site
Inclusion of footways that will connect to the site along the northern side of Welham Road, providing a connection to existing footways
Upgrade of existing bus stops on Langton Road to provide a shelter, seating and paved area for waiting.
Development of a Travel Plan and promotion of sustainable travel options
o Conclusion
7.64 Great Bowden benefits from a range of services and amenities and good bus services, which would be readily accessible from the proposed development site. It also benefits from good access to the main road network and fibre optic broadband. It’s close physical connection to Market Harborough will mean new residents would have access to the extensive range of services and facilities the town offers, including education, employment, retail and leisure. The proposal would therefore be consistent with the Framework’s principle that rural housing should be located where it will maintain or enhance the vitality of rural communities.
Design
7.65 The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.
7.66 CS2(b) advises all housing development should be of the highest design standard (in conformity with Policy CS11) and have a layout that makes the most efficient use of land and is compatible with the built form and character of the area in which it is situated.
o Amount
7.67 The development comprises 17 dwellings. These include an equivalent 8 affordable units (4 bungalows – which under Harborough District Council’s affordable housing policy, is the equivalent of 2 standard 2 storey affordable units).
7.68 In total this equates to a 47% provision across the site, above the required 40% provision. The remaining 13 dwellings are proposed as market housing. The proposed split of accommodation, including size and tenure, are as set out below:
Affordable
2-bedroom, 3 person bungalow x 2 2- bedroom, 4 person bungalow x 2
Market Housing
3-bedroom, 5-person house x 2 3-bedroom, 4 person house x 3 4-bedroom, 8 person house x 1 5-bedroom, 10 person house x 7
7.69 Each dwelling will have its own allocated off-road parking provision of at least 2 spaces.
o Layout
7.70 The proposed layout is illustrated below.
7.71 The layout illustrates:
Access is proposed via new junction to Dingley Road, creating a spine road to the secondary private roads and drives to provide access to individual properties
The road curves around the archaeological earthworks to the north-east
The existing tree spinney and hedgerow to Dingley Road is largely retained
Plots 1-4 is proposed in a farmstead style, set broadly in the location of an original barn from 19th Century
An open space frontage/entrance to the development is provided by setting the building line of Plot 5 back from Dingley Road and plots 13-17 back from the archaeological earthworks
The existing tree belt spinney is largely retained
Plot 9 faces directly back towards the site entrance; providing a strong termination of the vista when looking south.
Plots 13 & 14 (closest to the cemetery) are 2 storey
A mix of smaller properties to the north and larger more spacious dwellings to the south
Scale
7.72 Overall heights of the dwellings vary between 2 and 2.5 storey, together with bungalows to the north west of the site. The highest dwelling will be 10.0m to the ridge (Plot 8). Roof pitches have generally been designed at 40 degrees to emulate the steep pitched properties in the village, however where thatch is proposed these pitches are further increased to 45 degrees. It is noted that these heights are taken from the elevations plans and do not take account of the need for finished floor levels (FFL) of various plots to be raised, in accordance with the requirements for flood prevention. The FFL are set out in the table below, and compared to existing site levels.
Plot Dwelling ridge Current site FFL proposed in Difference height levels Amendment B between current site level and FFL 1-2 (1 storey) 7.5m 78.06-78.73 78.78 +0.72 to +0.05 3-4 (1 storey) 5.2m 78.34 78.35 +0.01 5 (2.5 storey) 9.4m 77.66-77.92 77.81 -0.15 to -0.11 6 (2 storey) 8.9m 77.32 77.24 -0.08 7 (2 storey) 8.5m 76.26-77.02 76.65 +0.39 to -0.37 8 (2 storey) 10.0m 75.76-76.01 76.52 +0.51 to +0.76 9 (2.5 storey) 9.2m 75.03-75.26 76.54 +1.51 to +0.28 10 (2 storey) 8.8m 75.64 76.59 +0.95 11 (2.5 storey) 9.2m 76.18 76.62 +0.44 12 (2.5 storey) 9.3m 75.85 76.62 +0.77 13/14 (2 storey) 8.9m 75.77 76.09 +0.32 15-17 (2.5 storey) 9.7m, 75.96 76.53 +0.57 9.54m (plot 17)
The dwelling heights proposed are already tall (minimum of 8.5m for a two storey dwelling) and the resultant height will be greater in the majority of cases due to the need to raise FFL. The scale of the proposed dwellings are therefore considered to be excessive in height. This has detrimental impacts in certain cases, where dwellings are particularly visible. For example, plots 1 and 2 (single storey dwellings) will be taller than the neighbouring existing 2 storey cottage number 10 Dingley Road. Also, the heights of plots 8-12 will make them more visible from within the Conservation Area, particularly from the gaps between properties on Knights End Road.
7.73 Officers are mindful that some of the plots appear particularly large (e.g. Plot 5, 9 and 10-12; however there are various examples of larger properties both within the historic core of the village and on newer residential developments in the village (e.g. The Pines and Fernie Hunt and Middlebrook Grange), that it would be difficult to defend.
Appearance
7.74 The proposed materials draw upon the high quality materials used within Great Bowden including locally sourced ironstone, red brickwork, render, natural slate, traditional thatch timber painted windows and doors. These traditional materials will be further enhanced by the use of appropriate architectural detailing at eaves, verges and chimney caps together with window and door heads and sills. The fenestration styles will range from Georgian sash windows to cottage style casement windows. Chimney stacks are also proposed to the majority of the dwellings
7.75 Farmstead style dwellings are proposed for plots 1-4. The Applicant contends the appearance is based around the appearance of an existing barn on Sutton Road. However this barn has been demolished and was of mud construction. A lower and sub-servient addition to the barn has been designed in a simple stable block arrangement.
7.76 Front boundary treatments will include a ‘green’ frontage; metal ‘park’ railings and low-level hedging. In terms of side and rear boundaries, timber close-boarded fencing is proposed to those plots abutting neighbouring gardens and roads, where as a combination of timber post and rail fencing and hedging is proposed to those properties abutting open spaces and / or paddock land.
Housing Density
7.77 The proposed 17 units equates to an average residential density of approximately 6 dwellings per hectare. (NB: includes public open space and SUDs features). Policy CS2 requires sites of over 0.3ha to have a minimum net density of 30 dph. The site layout has been driven by the setting of the site, constraints and the characteristics of the village. However, this is not necessarily making the most efficient and effective use of this greenfield land, given the Council’s lack of 5 year housing land supply.
7.78 Mindful of the above, on balance, given the constraints and sensitives of the site, a lower density than that required by CS2, is considered to be acceptable in this instance.
Inclusive Design
7.79 Whilst the units have not been specifically designed to Lifetime Homes Standards, specific features can be integrated into the properties e.g. dual access bathrooms (if required); provisions for wheelchair turning zones and a bedspace to be created at ground floor if necessary.
Conclusion
7.80 From the supporting information provided, it is judged that the majority of the development proposed would provide a well designed, landscaped layout. However, concerns remain regarding several plots, notably the Plots adjacent the cemetery which has been discussed in the heritage section above and plots adjacent to No.10 Dingley Road and 44A The Green and Plot 9 (which are discussed in the residential amenity section below). c) Landscape Character and Capacity
7.81 To determine the effect of any change of use or future development of the site it is important to fully understand the character of the site. Once the landscape character is established its sensitivity can be determined which will inform the significance of any change that may occur. o Landscape Designation
7.82 There are no national designated landscapes within or adjacent the site (e.g. Greenbelt, National Park, AONB etc). The site currently falls fully within an Area of Separation between Great Bowden and Market Harborough - as supported by HDC Local Plan Policy EV3 (2001) and Core Strategy polices CS1(h) and CS13 (f) (2011). This is primarily a policy relating to coalescence but also makes reference to the open character of the land. The site is also partially located within the Great Bowden Conservation Area – which has ben discussed in the previous section.
o Area of Separation
7.83 In 2011 HDC undertook an Area of Separation Review. The review identifies a number of parcels of land within the area of separation. The application site falls within Parcel C (see map below). The description states that “relatively small paddocks/fields have a close association with the village” and “there are areas on the immediate fringes of Great Bowden where limited development would not appear to prejudice the degree of separation due to form of the village”.
7.84 The landscape and visual assessment work undertaken by Munro Whitten on behalf of the Applicant examined the sensitivity of Area C to development, in accordance with the Area of Separation Review. It identified the application site as being closely associated with the village and having landscape capacity to accommodate development, without prejudicing the function of the Area of Separation.
7.85 Members may recall an application for the development of up to 70 dwellings on land off Berry Close was refused in December 2015. Permission was refused on the basis of impact upon the character and appearance of the countryside and the function of the area of separation. Berry Close is distinguishable from this site in terms of the area of separation: Berry Close is located much closer to Market Harborough and in part of the area of separation that the 2011 review identified as being important to the function of the area and vulnerable to change (Parcel B).
7.86 It could be argued that Areas of Separation are a ‘valued landscape’ in NPPF Paragraph 109 terms, however this was not argued at Berry Close and it is not intended to argue that point here.
7.87 The LPA’s decision to refuse Berry Close was appealed. The Inspector found that the development “would reduce and therefore would not maintain as existing, the separation space between Great Bowden and Market Harborough and a degree of coalescence would occur.” The Inspector therefore decided a conflict with policies CS1(h) and CS13(f) would occur but the conflict was outweighed by other material considerations, notably 5 year housing land supply and the site’s sustainable location and the Appeal was Allowed.
7.88 Given the 2011 Review and the material differences between Berry Close and the application site (as mentioned in Para 7.83), in Officers opinion, it would not be reasonable to refuse this application based on the site being located within an Area of Separation, when balanced against 5 year housing land supply and the site’s sustainable location.
o Regional Landscape Character
7.89 Natural England’s National Character Areas (NCAs) identify broad, strategic character areas for the whole of England. The site lies within the Leicestershire Vales: National Character Area 94. The south eastern part of the site falls within the Northamptonshire Vales: National Character Area 89.
o District Landscape Character
7.90 In 2009 HDC undertook a landscape character assessment of the District and a broad assessment on the character areas sensitivity to change and landscape capacity. The assessment identified a Welland Valley character area, which was then subdivided into ten local character areas of which the site falls into the Foxton to Great Bowden Slopes character area.
The characteristics of Welland Valley identified were: o Gently meandering river in wide and shallow valley
o Little established woodland with most mature planting following the watercourses
o Medium sized agricultural fields enclosed by mixed hedgerows
7.91 The study outlines the Capacity of the area for further development as being Medium with the following findings: o Medium capacity to accept small-scale development
o The character area has capacity to accommodate some residential development around Great Bowden.
7.92 The study identifies key issues for the Welland Valley LCA as being: o The relatively flat and open landscape is vulnerable to adverse visual and
landscape impacts of development. o The lack of woodland cover means that new development must be well mitigated to
minimise developments.
7.93 The Foxton to Great Bowden Slopes LCA covers an area north of Market Harborough, running from the village of Foxton in the west to the village of Great Bowden in the east.
7.94 The key characteristics of the Foxton to Great Bowden Slopes LCA that have relevance to the study area are: o Part of the broad valley of Langton Brook
o Predominantly pastoral farmland, particularly smaller fields close to settlement
o Strong hedgerows with trees o Vernacular brick buildings with slate roofs.
o Conservation areas and the village greens in Great Bowden
7.95 Their analysis of the landscapes within the Foxton to Great Bowden Slopes LCA and within which the site is situated is of a “good” condition and with a “strong” character. This leads the assessment to a broad landscape strategy of “safeguard and manage”.
Welland Valley North is adjacent to the application site. The Welland Valley North area was noted in the 2009 study as having a Good condition and Moderate strength of character with a strategy to Conserve and Strengthen.
o Landscape Capacity
7.96 The 2009 Study also provides an assessment of landscape capacity. The site is identified within land parcel 10 (see map below) and is given an overall capacity range of ‘Medium High’.
Extract of 2009 Landscape Capacity Map
7.97 The associated commentary states:
“This Land Parcel is located to the east of Great Bowden, on relatively flat land. The Parcel consists of numerous small fields, divided by a combination of tall hedgerows and fence lines. It falls within the Foxton to Great Bowden Slopes Landscape Character Area, as well as within the Area of Particularly Attractive Landscape and Separation Area designated by Harborough District Council. The Parcel is generally well contained by hedgerows and mature tree belts, and there is also a substantial woodland belt of semi-mature planting to the east of the Parcel, adjacent to the A6, which provides an effective screen to the road. The hedgerows have undergone variable management regimes, with some more intermittent than others.
Land use within this Parcel is a mixture of pastoral farmland/paddocks, cemeteries, private gardens and open space. There are some mature parkland trees within the Parcel and the hedgerows within it. Properties along the eastern edge of Great Bowden generally back onto the Parcel and have mature vegetation along their rear gardens, at least partially forming the boundary treatment. Fence lines form the remainder of the boundary treatments.
There are no public footpaths through this Land Parcel, but there is a right of way to the south of the Parcel, from Station Road to Dingley Road. In general, public views into the Parcel are relatively limited. There are views into the Parcel from properties along Station Road, Knight’s End Road and Dingley Road, particularly from first floor windows.
The Land Parcel has a good relationship to the existing built edge of Great Bowden, although some existing vegetation would need to be removed for development of the parcel to take place”
Officer Comment: The ‘Area of Particularly Attractive Landscape’ referenced in the above refers to the ‘Areas of Particularly Attractive Countryside’ designated under Policy EV/4 of the Harborough Local Plan 2001. At Appendix 3 of the 2011 Core Strategy, it states this policy has been replaced by Policy CS17.
7.98 The 2009 Study considers residential development to be most appropriate in this location (over other types of development e.g. commercial), subject the following mitigation measures:
Retention of existing landscape features and vegetation
Mature trees within the Parcel should be retained as far as possible.
Important views to be retained
Many of the properties adjacent to the Land Parcel fall within the Great Bowden Conservation Area. The setting of the Conservation Area, and Listed Buildings in the vicinity, will need to be carefully considered should the Land Parcel be developed.
Retention of existing routes through the site
There are no current routes through the site, such as rights of way or roads, which would need to be retained.
Ground modelling
Ground modelling would not be necessary or appropriate in this location.
Additional planting
Additional planting is likely to be necessary to reinforce hedgerows and soften the built edge of any development that should occur.
Maximum building heights
Existing residential properties within the immediate vicinity of this Land Parcel are 2 storeys high. Any development within this Parcel should reflect these heights.
Development layout The layout of any development within this parcel should reflect the traditional pattern of development within Great Bowden, with housing focussed around ‘greens’. It should be small scale and organic in form.
Building materials
Materials should be appropriate to the village context of the Land Parcel. Housing development should reflect the vernacular style of houses within the historic core of Great Bowden.
Open space provision and green infrastructure
As mentioned above, ‘greens’ should be created within any development to act as open space as well as reflect the traditional settlement form in Great Bowden.
o Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA)
7.99 A LVIA (Munro and Whitten) was submitted with the application. The LPA commissioned The Landscape Partnership’s (TLP) to review the Applicant’s LVIA and the LVIA addendums which accompanied Amendments A and B.
7.100 In terms of the effects on landscape character TLP agree with the LVIA that the extent of effects would be relatively localised and would be largely restricted to within c. 200m.
Original layout for 29 dwellings
7.101 The character area in which the site is located is assessed in the LVIA as having a Medium sensitivity for the development and that the magnitude change would be a Minor. The resultant significance of effect on landscape character in the LVIA is assessed as being Slight. In contrast to the LVIA, TLP consider the sensitivity of the local landscape character area within which the site is located is Medium- High. This is on account of the Conservation Area, listed buildings, the number of mature trees and the small scale character of the parcels. TLP consider that with a Moderate to High level of change at a local level this would result in a Moderate to Substantial/Moderate effect at Year 1 both on the site and immediate area. The nature of change (i.e. positive, neutral or adverse) is in this respect dependent on the quality of the design solution. This is still subject to verification dependent on the final design and any adjustments incorporated. The effect on the wider area is considered to be relatively modest and not significant.
7.102 TLP considers that there would be a number of direct adverse effects on the existing site vegetation including trees and copses close to Dingley Road. Furthermore there is insufficient evidence to verify that of the mature trees and site would not be adversely affected in close proximity to the proposed development.
7.103 In visual terms TLP broadly would agree with the findings of the LVIA on the extent of views and the general levels of effect and significance at Viewpoints 1-20. There would be no notable effects on Viewpoints 13-20 as these are essentially outside the visual envelope of the development.
7.104 TLP find some variations in magnitude and sensitivity in Viewpoints 1-10. The LVIA states that the magnitude change in some of the representative Viewpoints e.g. Viewpoint 3 is Moderate while TLP magnitude of change as High. Further from the site along Dingley Road and footpath A54 TLP consider the effects are likely to range between slight to moderate with higher levels of effect in the winter months when screening by vegetation is less effective. Despite the local differences on magnitude and sensitivity TLP are in broad agreement with the LVIA that there would be significant adverse effects at a number of locations local to the site as illustrated by Viewpoints 1-7 and 9-10.
7.105 The visual effects on some of the adjacent residential properties most notably at Dingley Road and properties to the east of Knights End Road would encounter some high magnitude of change. TLP were not satisfied that the original layout and landscape scheme provided sufficient mitigation for these properties.
7.106 TLP consider that there would be some localised significant landscape character effects on the local landscape during construction, at Year 1 and beyond. With some adjustment to the layout this could be moderated to potentially create an acceptable scheme albeit potentially with the reduction of units.
7.107 The comments received from TLP indicated that the layout of the scheme would need to be adjusted including additional mitigation.
Amendment A – 23 dwellings
7.108 TLP provided the following response to Amendment A:
Landscape character I note there do not appear to be any changes to the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment originally submitted in response to our report of July 2016. In this report, TLP considered that there would be some relatively greater effects on the local landscape character compared to that assessed within the LVIA. Nonetheless, TLP consider that the modified scheme would have a relatively lower effect on landscape character. However, the effect of the development is still likely to be Moderate to Substantial/Moderate. In relation to the nature of the change (positive, neutral or adverse) TLP consider that the design aims to positively respond to the sensitive edge of village location through the creation of varied character areas and retained areas of open space, providing a setting within the development. While there are some adverse changes through loss of trees and areas of open pasture the effect overall is considered to be on balance, neutral through the introduction of an interesting and varied residential development.
Visual impact In terms of visual effects TLP particular highlighted concerns with the original layout upon properties in Knights End Road and Dingley Road. The revised proposals reduce adverse effects on these properties. In the case of Knights End Road turning unit 15 through 90° helps to reduce the overlooking aspect. In the case of Dingley Road, the retention of the woodland copse and trees to the road frontage make a substantive improvement.
Site layout The modified scheme includes a number of improvements to the site layout . The main outstanding issues from our perspective are
Units 4 to 7. It is understood that the design approach is to introduce a terraced properties matching the context of Dingley Road opposite. However, this is a relatively short Terrace and does not fit so easily in comparison set to units 19 to 23. The detachment of parking from these properties and with no parking spaces for visitors is questionable. A preferable alternative would be to have a dual aspect detached house in this location with parking to the site. The property off the access road (not Dingley Road). This would also reduce overlooking to the terrace property to the north of Dingley Road , and could still form a reasonable gateway into the development and village, (as was proposed in the original submission). The proposed native hedgerow could still be accommodated to the rear of the forward visibility line to the site of the garden.
The footpath link onto Dingley Road adjacent to unit 3. Pedestrians using this link would encounter a blind crossing point on Dingley Road. It is suggested this is deleted and rather rely on the main site access or the pedestrian link into the village.
Effects on trees and hedges In our previous report TLP made a number of comments requiring justification of tree removals. The revised layout reduces the amount of tree loss and the September submissions include a more detailed Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement. The information is also accompanied by a much fuller range of drawings showing tree loss and retention. From a landscape perspective it appears that the report sets out a reasoned justification for the loss of some trees on the site while retaining the majority of the higher quality specimens.
However, some incursion into the Root Protection Areas still occurs. It is noted that mini piles are proposed where garage is extend into the RPA as for plots, 12 and 13. There would also be an incursion into the RPA is for the large retained trees to the south of G9 and to the east of unit 3. It is recommended that these incursions should be commented on by a qualified, Arboriculturist to ensure the trees can be retained.
The effect on the hedgerow to Dingley Road is clarified, which is helpful, including the provision of a new hedge set behind the forward visibility line.
Landscape proposals A revised Landscape Scheme has been submitted by Munro and Whitten. The principles shown on this drawing, 0740. 002B broadly acceptable and provide the basis for agreeing a more detailed landscape scheme as submission of a planning condition if the scheme were approved. This includes the addition of a number of larger native trees to the south of the site filling gaps within hedgerows. However, it is noted that in a few locations larger tree species (beech and oak) are shown close to properties and this should be reviewed. Furthermore, the extensive use of beech hedging as indicated should be modified with potentially more compatible species used to the fronts of properties.
Management of open space The modified scheme includes a number of areas of open space outside the curtilage of individual properties. This would require management. A plan should be submitted to clarify which areas fall within public open space and state how these would be managed in the longer term.
In summary, TLP consider that the modify proposals broadly acceptable subject to the detailed matters set out above”
Amendment B – 17 dwellings
7.109 TLP provided the following response to Amendment B:
Revised Site Plan The revised layout for 17 units includes a number of positive enhancements compared to the previous layout including the removal of the terrace houses to Dingley Lane with a single larger property and associated garden with copse (unit 5) set back from the entrance. A length of existing hedge would be removed to provide the necessary sight line but this could be reinstated to provide a suitable entrance, verge and pedestrian crossing point.
Further improvements are the proposal to retain the land next to the Village Hall as community land and the removal of a unit to the south—west of the cemetery.
Boundary Treatment The range of proposed boundary treatments shown on dwg. L303 P004 Rev F seem appropriate. However, some boundaries may need revisions or additional elements e.g. estate rail to front of Unit 05 and some fence to accompany the hedging. The extent of 1.8m close boarded fencing may also benefit from reduction in some locations. A suitable condition should be able to resolve these issues if the scheme is approved.
Trees effects The two drawings showing tree loss and retention clarify the proposals and that there would still be a good level of tree cover on the site. Where garages are located within the RPA of trees a low impact solution is suggested. There is a large tree to the north of Units 03 and 04 where the proposed road runs within the canopy. It is recommended that specialist measures are undertaken within the RPA e.g. tree air spade to establish the presence of roots and then a no-dig construction used. This point should be followed up by HDCs arboricultural advisor.
Landscape Proposals The Landscape scheme dwg. 0740.002D shows an appropriate basis for the soft landscape treatment of the latest layout. It is appreciated that a few changes have been made e.g. the location of larger tree species and a wider planting palette. If the scheme is approved then a condition should be applied to require a more detailed scheme to be submitted to HDC. This should follow the principles of dwg. 0740.002D. It is also recommended that a landscape maintenance and management plan is required by condition. This is particularly the case as there are a number of public areas.
In summary, TLP consider that if the principle of development is acceptable in planning terms then the modified proposals are acceptable in landscape and visual terms by providing an appropriate and sensitive approach to a low density development in this location. Planning conditions should include detailed hard and soft landscape and maintenance and management.
Conclusion
7.110 On balance, and in light of the response provided by TLP, officers consider the amended proposals are acceptable in terms of impact on landscape character.
Highways
Existing Highway
7.111 Dingley Road itself is approximately 5.5m to 6.0m in width with a derestricted speed limit predominantly located to the east of the site along the carriageway, with a 30mph/60mph interface situated along the northern boundary upon entry to the village.
7.112 It is noted that this 30mph limit is along the northern boundary of the site. A footway of circa 1.2m in width is located along the northern side of Dingley Road which ceases at the village gateway. Beyond this, a 1.5m footway is located along the southern side of the carriageway from the cemetery access eastwards.
Traffic Survey
7.113 An automatic traffic counter (ATC) was installed along Dingley Road during school term time (commencing Tuesday 22nd March 2016) in order to determine vehicle speeds passing the proposed site access. A full copy of the ATC speed survey data is provided in Appendix D of the TS, with a summary provided below:
Traffic speeds were recorded, with the 85th percentile speeds being 32.0 mph
westbound and 36.0 mph eastbound. Two-way traffic flows highlighted that a peak of 298 vehicles past the site during the
AM peak (08:00-09:00 Wednesday 23rd March) with 278 vehicles passing the site during the PM peak (1700-18:00 Wednesday 23rd March). HGV flows were recorded during the study period. A total of 9% of flows westbound
and 11% eastbound comprised HGVs.
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (RSA)
7.114 A Stage 1 RSA was undertaken by TMS on behalf of MEC on 3rd November 2016. The RSA identified 4 problems and provided potential recommendations. M-EC then prepared a response to the RSA, as outlined below.
Problem 1 Visibility splay to the right is likely to remain obstructed by some vegetation within the southern verge. Poor visibility may lead to pull-out type vehicle collisions
Recommendation It should be ensured that the visibility splay to the right is achieved which is likely to require some cutting back or removal of vegetation
M-EC Response Agree. Some existing hedgerow and a tree will need to be removed to facilitate the access construction, and a note has been added to the drawing to state any vegetation to the east within the visibility splay will need to be trimmed back
Problem 2 There is significant amount of on street parking within the vicinity of the proposed pedestrian crossing point outside No. 3 Dingley Road. Pedestrians stepping out into the road between parked vehicles may be at risk of being struck by passing vehicles.
Recommendation Either the pedestrian crossing point should be relocated to a more suitable location where inter-visibility to and from the crossing point is not compromised or alternatively measures should be introduced to prevent parking adjacent to the crossing.
ME-C Response As the alternative crossing location adjacent to the access is deemed acceptable, it is proposed to remove the proposed crossing point adjacent to No. 3 Dingley Road in order to remove any possible impact on resident’s parking on the northern side of Dingley Road.
Problem 3 There is existing street lighting on Dingley Road but it terminates outside The Rectory. Insufficient illumination of the junction and the immediate approach may result in darkness related collisions between all road users.
Recommendation The street lighting should be extended south eastwards on Dingley Road to the new 30mph speed limit gateway.
ME-C Response Agreed and a note has been added to the drawing. Street Lighting designs will be undertaken and submitted as part of the Section 278 submission.
Problem 4 The two proposed pedestrian crossing locations are likely to coincide with metal service covers in the carriageway. Metal covers within the crossing path of pedestrians using the crossing may present a slip hazard, particularly in wet or icy conditions.
Recommendation Either the pedestrian crossing locations should be altered to ensure that they do not coincide with the service covers or the covers should be treated with a pedestrian friendly non-slip surface
ME-C Response Agreed, an anti-slip cover will be installed on the existing manhole in Dingley Road.
Proposed Access
7.115 On the basis of the Stage 1 RSA, ME-C amended the proposed access drawing as illustrated below.
Drawing 21468_08_020_02M – Proposed Access
7.116 The drawing shows the site will be accessed via the construction of a new priority T- junction onto Dingley Road. The access road into the site will conform to LCCs 6C’s design guide, with a road width of 5.5m served by 2.0m footway along the western side of the access road to facilitate pedestrian movement.
7.117 The proposed access location falls close to the existing 30mph/60mph speed interface along Dingley Road upon approach to the village. It is proposed to relocate this interface, coupled with the existing village gateway, further to the east, beyond the cemetery access.
7.118 Roundels, coupled with dragons teeth will also be provided upon approach to the village.
7.119 Visibility splays of 2.4m x 58m west and 2.4m x 46m east are proposed.
7.120 A new uncontrolled pedestrian crossing will be provided adjacent to the access to facilitate pedestrian movements onto the existing footway on the northern side of Dingley Road, which then provides access west into Great Bowden. Dropped kerbs with tactile paving will signify this crossing.
Proposed Trip Generation
7.121 The Transport Statement submitted in support of the application has considered the trip generation from the proposed 17 dwellings during both the AM and PM peak periods. The proposed development traffic flows would result in an increase of approximately 12 two-way trips along Dingley Road during the peak periods (one trip every 5 -6 minutes).
Traffic Impact
7.122 A capacity assessment has been undertaken for the proposed site access junction on Dingley Road. The model results indicate that the proposed site access on Dingley Road will operate comfortably during a ‘2021 with all development’ scenario.
Local Highway Authority (LHA) Observations
7.123 The LHA advise that the residual cumulative impacts of development can be mitigated and are not considered severe in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF. The LHA undertook its own independent speed surveys in the area which validated those submitted. The visibility splays proposed are therefore acceptable. The trip generation and capacity assessment showed no severe impact in capacity terms. As the proposed dwellings have been reduced, waiting restrictions to prevent worsening of on street parking along Dingley Road is no longer sought. The layout is not considered suitable for adoption by LCC as a publically maintainable highway.
Conclusion
7.124 Officers acknowledge the concerns raised by the local community during the application, in relation to on-street parking, access into the site, width of Dingley Road, visibility, however, the Local Highway Authority has reviewed the proposal and has stated that, in its view, the residual cumulative impacts of development can be mitigated and are not considered severe in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF.
Flooding/Drainage
Flood Risk
7.125 The EA flood zone maps show that the site lies within Flood Zone 1 and is not a risk of fluvial flooding in storm events up to 1 in 1000 years. In accordance with Table 3 of the NPPG the development is therefore sequentially acceptable.
7.126 The EA surface water flooding maps however show the site to be at high risk of surface flooding (3.3%) due to the presence of Gunn’s Brook running through the site.
7.127 Hydraulic modelling of Gunn’s Brook has been undertaken to accurately assess the extent of Flood Zones within the site. A sequential approach has been applied in formulating the development layout, with proposed dwellings located beyond the extent of modelled Flood Zones 2 and 3 and at elevations above the modelled flood levels. The FRA advises, fluvial flooding poses a low risk to the development subject to the recommended flood mitigation measures being implemented.
7.128 The vulnerability of the development to flooding from all other sources, such as pluvial, sewerage, groundwater and artificial water bodies, has been assessed. The FRA advises all these sources pose a low risk to the development subject to the recommended mitigation measures being implemented.
Drainage Strategy
7.129 Infiltration drainage has not been considered as a primary means of surface water disposal due to the local underlying mudstone geology and the results of soakage testing undertaken on site.
7.130 The surface water strategy proposes two separate drainage systems to the northern and southern areas, both outfalling into Gunn’s Brook. These systems will provide attenuation for flows up to a 1 in 100 year storm event (+40% allowance for climate change). The FRA advises the proposed surface water strategy will not increase flood risk at the site or elsewhere.
7.131 The foul water strategy proposes discharging by gravity into the existing foul sewers running west through the site
Flood Mitigation Measures
7.132 The flood risk management measures includes on the proposed development site will include the following Permeable driveways and a surface water drainage system that will intercept the majority of run-off generated with the development roads All buildings designed with the finish floor level at least 300mm above adjacent external ground levels where at risk of surface water flooding and 150mm above adjacent ground levels where they are not External ground profile designed to slope away from the buildings (where possible); where flush thresholds are required, a suitable ramp will be required Gunn’s Brook retained to serve as the main outfall for the sites drainage systems and realigned in part to provide sufficient spacing for dwellings and roadways A new length of re-profiled channel with a new culvert beneath the proposed road crossing to the Brook. A flood storage area will also be added adjacent to the southern bank of the new realigned channel Properties raised approximately 1m in the low lying areas where the overland flow route could be present.
LLFA consultation response
7.133 The LLFA advise that the proposed development would be acceptable if their suggested conditions are applied. Conditions relate to: fluvial modelling of the capacity of the watercourse Gunn’s Brook, maintenance of the watercourse, a surface water drainage scheme in accordance with the FRA, construction surface water management plan and SuDS maintenance plan and schedule.
Conclusion
7.134 Officers acknowledge the concerns raised by the local community with regards to flooding. These concerns have resulted in the application being independently checked on behalf of the LLFA by both AECOM and WSP. Based on revised FRA and Amendment B plans, the LLFA are satisfied the proposal will not increase flooding subject to conditions.
Ecology
Statutory / Non-Statutory Designated Sites
7.135 No statutory designated sites are present on site. There is one statutory designated site within 1km of the proposed development site: Great Bowden Borrowpit SSSI. There are a number of non-stautory sites within 1km of the site which include candidate local wildlife sites and potential local wildlife sites. None of these features are situated within the site. The River Welland, to the south of the site, is a candidate local wildlife site. The mature lime trees of the churchyard immediately to the north of the site have been identified as a potential wildlife site. It is not anticipated that the proposed development would impact upon any locally important features.
A Phase 1 Ecological Survey
7.136 The Phase 1 survey submitted with the application concludes:
There is one pond on site (P2) and a wet depression (P1). The features scored ‘poor’ on the HIS assessment. The presence of amphibian species is considered unlikely due to poor aquatic and terrestrial habitat on site and in the locality. As such it is concluded that the impact on this species group will be negligible. Both ponds will be retained and P1 will be enhanced as part of the development proposals. The presence of reptile species is considered unlikely due to poor terrestrial habitat on site. As such it is concluded that the impact on this species group will be negligible
It is not anticipated that the site supports significant numbers of notable bird species. Nevertheless, the site provides breeding opportunities for birds and thus it is recommended that any vegetation removal is undertaken outside of the breeding bird season (March to September inclusive). However, should these works be requires within the breeding bird season then it is recommended that check for breeding birds is undertaken by a suitably qualified surveyor prior to works commencing. It is recommended that any proposed hedgerow, tree and shrub planting within residential gardens and landscaped areas includes native fruit bearing specimens to increase foraging opportunities for birds within the site.
No active badger setts were recorded on or close to the site and there are no local records for badgers in the area.
The majority of the habitats within the site are of low value for bats; however, a few mature boundary trees provided minor roosting opportunities and based on the age and position of the boundary hedgerows (particularly H10, H11 and H14) it is anticipated that the site facilitates commuting of bats to optimal foraging habitats situated within the wider landscape and some limited foraging opportunities within the site. It is anticipated that impacts to bats will be avoided through the retention of the significant hedgerows and trees. No Category 1 bat roosting potential trees would be lost as part of the development and the majority of Catergory 2 trees would also be retained. One Cat 2 tree would be removed on the northern boundary to facilitate the proposed access. Based on habitat quality, it is anticipated that foraging within the site is restricted to common and widespread species, such s common and soprano pipistrelle.
The proposed access would require the loss of small section of hedgerow (H5). The central and northern-western field parcels would be proposed housing, as would the south-western field parcel. Hedgerow loss would be limited to small sections of boundary hedge and small sections of internal hedgerows associated with H3 and H4. The small hedgerow losses will be compensated by new hedgerow planting within the development and also new landscape areas and tree planting within the site. The majority of the significant tree features are to be retained as part of the proposed development.
7.137 As the main body of the site is of low ecological value due to low species diversity an thus development provides the opportunity to significantly enhance the sites biodiversity.
7.138 Following photographic evidence from a local resident, the Applicant was asked to re-survey the site in relation to badgers. The survey (REC, September 2016) identified that ““no significant evidence of badger activity was found within the application site and no setts were found within 30m of the site. County Ecology advised officers that the development would not result in a significant loss of foraging habitat, primarily as there is still a significant amount of grassland to the south and east of the application site
7.139 The Applicant was not asked for bat activity surveys as the development does not result in the loss of any significant foraging habitat (bats will forage along tree lines and hedgerows, not across open fields). County Ecology consider that it is unlikely to impact any existing bat roosts in the village, these bats will be used to foraging in lighter village environments and the habitat retention on the application site will maintain foraging routes.
Conclusion
7.140 Officers acknowledge the concerns raised by the local community in relation to the ecological information submitted by the Applicant, which is why County Ecology visited the site themselves to make their own assessment and their results did not vary significantly from the results in the ecological report submitted with the application. County Ecology have raised no objections to the application subject to conditions, including works to be in accordance with the recommendations in Section 6 of the ecology survey (REC, August 2015 and 2016); an updated badger survey prior to commencement of the development and the submission of a biodiversity management plan.
Forestry
7.141 An Arboricultural Survey was undertaken in July 2015 to assess 53 trees, 14 groups of trees to the standards of BS5837 (2012) ‘Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction – Recommendations’. It found that 1 tree meets the standard for a High (A) Category and that 17 trees and 4 groups are worthy of a Moderate (B). It goes on to grade 27 trees and 10 groups as a Low (C) and identify 8 trees as Unsuitable (U) for Retention. The results of this survey have been transposed onto the proposed site layout in a Tree Retention Plan.
7.142 The Tree Retention Plan indicates the vast majority of the individual trees and groups are to be retained. 18 trees are proposed to be removed, for reasons relating to site layout, highway safety or arboricultural health. In addition, 70m of existing hedgerow needs to be removed to provide appropriate visibility to the west of the proposed access. This hedgerow has been assessed against the Hedgerow Regulations criteria and it does not meet the criteria.
Conclusion
7.143 The loss of these trees and hedgerow to facilitate the development is unfortunate; however, the loss can be mitigated through a comprehensive landscape scheme, which could be conditioned as advised by TLP.
Residential Amenity
7.144 One of the core planning principles (Core Principle 4) in the Framework is to ensure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings and this is also reflected in CS Policy CS11.
7.145 In order to objectively assess the impact of the proposed development upon existing residential amenity, the Council has adopted supplementary planning design guidance (March 2003).
7.146 The guidance note states there are three main ways in which development can affect residential amenity:
o Loss of light (overshadowing) o Loss of privacy(overlooking) o Erection of an over dominant or overbearing structure
7.147 In order to ensure an acceptable amenity relationship between existing and proposed development the LPA has adopted minimum separation distances of 21 metres between principal windows on facing properties and 14 metres where one property faces a blank elevation.
Impact of Proposed Plots on existing properties Residential Amenity
No.10 Dingley Road and Plots 1 and 2
No.10 consists of a two storey cottage with an Eaves height of 83.19m and a ridge height of 85.64m. The cottage is situated on lower ground than the development site. The rear elevation of Plot 1 will be located 16m from the ground floor living room window and 1st floor bedroom window of No.10, which face east. The impact from the living room window is reduced by No.10’s outbuilding, however given the difference in levels and height of the Plot 1 (86.28m at ridge – total 7.5m), it is considered Plots 1 and 2 would not have an acceptable relationship with No.10 in terms of amenity.
No.3 Dingley Road and Plot 1’s garage There is a separation distance of 31m between the front elevation of No.3 Dingley Road and the garage of Plot 1. This relationship is acceptable.
No.15 Dingley Road and The Vicarage and Plot 5
There is a separation distance of 37m between the front elevations of No .15 Dingley Road and The Vicarage and the side elevation Plot 5. This relationship is acceptable.
44A The Green and Plot 2
The side elevation of Plot 2 and rear elevation of Plots 3 and 4 face on to the boundary wall of No.44A The Green. Plot 2 is the closest to No.44A at a distance of 33m. This relationship is acceptable.
44A and 44 The Green and Plots 6 & 7
The rear elevation of Plots 6 and 7 are 89m away from 44A and 79m from 44. A large mature tree is located on the north-eastern boundary which will filter views through to Plot 6 from No.44A. This relationship is acceptable.
1 and 5 Knights End Road do not share a boundary with the site, rather these properties share their boundaries with 7 Knights End Road and 45 the Green respectively – no assessment from these properties has therefore been undertaken
7 Knights End Road (Grade II Listed) will share a partial boundary with Plot 8 and a full boundary with Plots, 9, 10 and 11. There is a separation distance of 80m to the garage of Plot 8; 93m of the garage of Plot 9; 65m from the side elevation of Plot 10 and 47m from the garage of Plot 11. There are several mature trees along the boundary with Plot 8 and Plot 9. This relationship is acceptable.
No.27 Knights End Road (Grade II Listed) and Plots 11 and 12
At it closest the south western corner of Plot 11 will be 32m from the north eastern corner of No.27. The rear of No.27 has principal first floor and ground floor windows and a low level boundary wall with the site.
The side elevation of Plot 11 will be 32m from the full length 1st floor glazed window of No.27’s detached outbuilding which at 1st floor is used as an art studio. This is not a principal room and whilst overlooking may occur the distance of 32m is considered sufficient.
The plan indicates a proposed landscape buffer adjacent to No.27’s eastern boundary. The Applicant has advised they intend to ‘transfer’ this land to No.27. The LPA however can not secure this for the neighbour, i.e. it is not required to make the development acceptable. Furthermore, Officers are concerned about what this landscape buffer will consist of e.g. if trees are proposed, once fully grown, these could cause a loss of light to the principal windows of No.27; if a wall or fence is proposed this may have a harmful impact upon the setting of the listed building; if no planting or hard boundary is proposed, there is a concern that overlooking between 27 and Plot 11 would occur. This is not considered to be an acceptable relationship.
No.31 Knights End Road and Plot 11 (36m) At its closest the south western corner of Plot 11 will be 36.5m from the north-eastern corner of No.31. Whilst no 31 has a 1st floor terrace which will overlook the rear garden of No.11, this terrace is unlikely to be used every day, given the climate and such it would be unreasonable to conclude that an unacceptable relationship would result.
Impact of proposed plots on future residential amenity
7.148 With the exception of Plots 3 and 4 and Plot 9, which will be discussed in more detail below, it is judged each Plot is served by an adequate amount of garden space commensurate with the size of the dwelling.
Plots 3 & 4
7.149 Whilst it is appreciated Plots 3 and 4 will be 2 bedroom units, these plots face south and face onto an established hedge (and trees in relation to Plot 3) and a 2m high brick wall. This leaves Plot 3 with approximately a 3m depth useable garden and Plot 4 with approximately 4.5m depth of useable garden. These gardens whilst small, may cater for those who do not necessarily want a large garden. However, of more concern however, is that there will be considerable future pressure to prune/remove the trees as they are likely to cause overshadowing and leaf fall as these properties face south.
Plot 9
7.150 This is a large property, situated within a modest plot, it’s rear elevation and garden face south. Within the proposed garden area are several mature trees. Like with Plot 3 there will be considerable future pressure to prune/remove the trees as they are likely to cause overshadowing and significant leaf fall.
7.151 Despite the Applicant’s plan indicating these trees will be retained, it is considered that eventually they will be removed and as such it is considered an unacceptable relationship will result.
Conclusion
7.152 Given the Applicant’s recent discussion with officers (3rd Feb 2017) which is discussed in more detail in the ‘Other Matters’ section of this report below, the applicant has not been asked to amend the relevant plots to overcome issue’s of residential amenity and as such a reason for refusal is recommended on these grounds.
Impact upon the Community & Village Infrastructure
7.153 Concern has been expressed by local residents that the proposed development would have an impact on the community and the village infrastructure (in particular the primary school) due to the pace of growth in the village and the loss of social cohesion as a result of a rapid influx of new residents.
7.154 The village is predominantly residential with a population of 1,017 (Census 2011). The development if permitted would add approximately 114 persons (based on the data supplied by the Applicant), which will equate to a 10% increase in the village population. The total number of residences in village is 486 (2011 Census + 19 households built since 2011). The development if permitted, would add up to 17 houses which could equate up to a 3.4% increase in the total number of residences. This does not include the 50 houses allowed at Welham Lane, the 70 houses allowed on appeal at Berry Close, and the recent 5 allowed at Dingley Road (a further 125). If permitted, this would be a total increase in village residences of 22%.
7.155 The 2015 Settlement Profile data suggest that Great Bowden’s population profile is aging. The above 55 age groups are all over represented in relation to the District as a whole. Conversely the younger age groups are under represented.
7.156 It is considered the new population would provide support for local facilities such as the village shop and the various social groups within the village. The proposed development would contribute to the mix of housing in the village, catering to a range of ages and incomes, which Paragraph 50 of The Framework recognises is important to the creation of mixed and sustainable communities. This would have a positive effect on the vitality of the community and its long term sustainability.
7.157 Officers acknowledge local concerns about the level of expansion of the village; the wording of Policy CS17a which says “housing in selected rural villages will be on a lesser scale reflecting their size, character and service provision” and the fact that the Local Plan Options consultation identifies a range of 24 to 114 dwellings by allocation at Great Bowden. However, as explained in Section 7a, Policy CS17a is an out of date policy and the housing range identified for Great Bowden is a minimum amount not a maximum. Furthermore, whatever growth strategy is adopted in the Local Plan, Great Bowden, as a sustainable settlement, within close proximity to Market Harborough will need to accommodate additional dwellings of which some will have to take place on greenfield land.
7.158 Officers are also is aware of the comments from Great Bowden Academy and the PTA, however, the Local Education Authority have advised there is an overall surplus of all 4 primary schools within a two mile walking distance of the development of 10 pupil places and as such this development can be catered for.
Other Matters o Agricultural Land Quality
7.159 Para 112 of the Framework says that LPAs should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, (best and most versatile being defined as land in Grade 1, 2 and 3a).
7.160 The site is presently used as pastureland. Soils are heavy textured and show signs of impeded drainage. Fieldwork undertaken on adjacent application sites (e.g. Berry Close) finds fields comprise Agricultural Land Classification Subgrade 3b.
o Loss of Privacy/Noise Disturbance to those attending the cemetery/burials
7.161 Concerns have been raised by the local community that the proposed development will result in a loss of privacy/noise disturbance for people attending burials or visiting graves. Plot 5 will directly overlook the current cemetery extension which has a post and rail fence as it’s boundary to the application site. Plot 13’s back garden is adjacent to the cemetery wall.
o Seeking Solutions 186-187 of NPPF
7.162 Officers met with the Applicant and Agent on 3rd February 2017 to discuss the merits of the application. At this meeting the Applicant raised concerns that they had been asked to make several changes to the plan but the recommendation on the application is to refuse. In the spirt of the NPPF in trying to seek solutions, during the course of the application the applicant was asked to make changes to the plan, a) to overcome objections raised by consultees e.g. the Lead Local Flood Authority, Highways, Archaeology etc and b) to see whether the impact on heritage assets could be overcome. Seeking solutions to problems is part and parcel of any application and the applicant has not been asked to do anything more than required in order for Officers to come to a decision.
Planning Obligations
7.163 Planning obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), commonly known as s106 agreements, are a mechanism for securing benefits to militate against the impacts of development.
7.164 Those benefits can compromise, for example, monetary contributions (towards public open space or education, amongst others), the provision of affordable housing, on site provision of public open space / play area and other works or benefit’s that meet the three legal tests.
7.165 Planning obligations must be:
•necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms •directly related to the development •fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development
7.166 These legal tests are also set out as policy tests in paragraph 204 of the Framework.
7.167 Policy CS12 provides that new development will be required to provide the necessary infrastructure which will arise as a result of the proposal. More detailed guidance on the level of contributions is set out in The Planning Obligations Developer Guidance Note, 2009 and Leicestershire Developer Guidance Note 2014.
7.168 Appendix A identifies the developer contribution sought by consultees, an assessment as to whether the requests are CIL compliant and a suggested trigger point to advise when the contribution should be made.
7.169 The Assessment concludes that all consultee requests are CIL Regulation 122 and 123 compliant.
8. The Planning Balance / Conclusion
8.1 The Framework requires LPAs to grant planning permission for sustainable development. Para.7 states: “There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental”.
8.2 In social terms, the development would increase the supply and choice of housing including affordable housing in line with Objectively Assessed Housing Need in an area where there is not a Framework compliant supply of housing land.
8.3 The development would also contribute towards economic growth during the construction period in terms of employment. In the longer term the additional population would be likely to increase spending, for instance in the local shops and help support the range of other local services including the local bus service which would help maintain their viability.
8.4 In terms of environmental considerations, the site is located on the edge of a sustainable settlement, within a reasonable walking/cycling distance to a range of amenities and services.
8.5 The development, through loss of this greenfield land would result in limited and localised harm to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. However, this harm is off-set by the proposed landscape mitigation, improvements to biodiversity and the provision of open space over and above policy requirements.
8.6 The development would not result in coalescence between Great Bowden and Market Harborough.
8.7 Statutory consultees are satisfied that the development will not result in increased flood risk, adversely affect highway safety or ecological interests.
8.8 Notwithstanding the positive aspects of the development mentioned above, the development will result in less than substantial harm to identified designated and non-designated heritage assets. The harm has been weighed against the public benefits of the proposal in accordance with paragraph 134 of the Framework and a balanced judgement undertaken in accordance with paragraph 135. The public benefits are considered to not outweigh the harm identified. The scale of harm to the non-designated heritage assets is of such a degree that is would have a significant and detrimental impact on their original setting. In accordance with paragraph 14 of the Framework (limb 2), the Framework indicates that development should be restricted and limb 1 of paragraph 14 is not applied.
8.9 Furthermore, the development will not safeguard the amenities of existing and future residents, in relation to plots 1-4, 9 and 11.
8.10 Officers therefore conclude, the development does NOT represent sustainable development. The development therefore conflicts with the Development Plan, Framework and Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
Appendix A - Planning Obligations – 16/00802/OUT
Request Obligation Amount /Detail CIL Justification & Policy Basis By LCC Education Primary School The site falls within the catchment area of Great Bowden Sector Academy. The School has a net capacity of 140 and 173 Requirement pupils are projected on the roll should this development proceed; a deficit of 33 pupil places. A total of 10 pupil £0 places are included in the forecast for this school from S106 agreements for other developments in this area and have to be discounted. This reduces the total deficit for this school to 23 pupil places.
There are 4 other primary schools within a two mile walking distance of the development.
There are 4 other primary schools within a two mile walking distance of the development.
Surplus 36 (no S106 Meadowdale Primary funded places to be School discounted) Deficit of 34 (No s106 funded places to be Little Bowden School discounted) Surplus of 9 (no S106 Ridgeway Primary funded places to be Academy discounted) Market Harborough Surplus of 22 (after 28 Church of England S106 funded places Primary School discounted)
There is an overall surplus in this sector after including all primary schools within a two mile walking distance of the development of 10 pupil places. An education contribution Secondary School will therefore not be requested for this sector. Sector Requirement The site falls within the catchment area of The Robert £0 Smyth Academy. The Academy has a net capacity of 1343 and 1352 pupils are projected on the roll should this development proceed; a deficit of 9 pupil places. A total of 235 pupil places are included in the forecast for this school from S106 agreements for other developments in this area and have to be discounted. This reduces the deficit at this school and creates a surplus of 226 pupil places.
There is 1 other 11-18 school within a three mile walking distance of the development.
Welland Park Academy – Deficit 226 (no S106 funded places to be discounted)
After including all 11-18 schools within a three mile walking distance of the development, there is an overall deficit/surplus of 0 pupil places.
An education contribution will therefore not be requested for this sector. Core Strategy: Policy CS12, Appendix 2 (Infrastructure Schedule),
Leicestershire Planning Obligations Policy Adopted 3rd December 2014
The Framework 2012: which seeks to “deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs”
LCC Civic £0 The nearest civic amenity site to the proposed Amenity development is located at Market Harborough and residents of the proposed development are likely to use this site. The civic amenity site will b able to meet the demands of the proposed development within the current site thresholds without the need for further development and therefore no contribution is required on this occasion LCC Libraries £0 No claim required for library services. The proposed development would not have any adverse impact on current stock provision at the nearest library which is Market Harborough
LCC County 2% or £300 of the It is appropriate for the County Council to recover costs Council total value of each associated with the negotiating, production and Monitoring contribution in subsequent monitoring of developer contributions. This Cost favour of the covers any costs associated with obtaining independent or Contribution County Council specialist advice to validate aspects of the contributions (whichever is the and the costs of monitoring the payment and greater) implementation of schemes and funding.
Core Strategy: Policy CS12, Appendix 2 (Infrastructure Schedule),
Leicestershire Planning Obligations Policy Adopted 3rd December 2014.
HDC Affordable 40% of the total A fundamental objective of the CS is to meet to meet the Housing number of units to need for affordable housing (CS Strategic Objective 1 and be affordable CS Policy CS2. CS Policy CS3 seeks a proportion of new dwellings within developments to be affordable.
The 2014 SHMA indicates that 272 affordable dwellings are required in the District per annum up to 2031. The SHMA also recognises that this is unrealistic. The Council’s target is to achieve 90 affordable dwellings per annum.
Providing affordable housing on site will result in an inclusive, sustainable development. The size and tenure of the affordable housing is based on the current needs of those on the Council’s waiting list.
Core Strategy Policy CS3
Core Strategy: Policy CS12, Appendix 2 (Infrastructure Schedule),
Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (January 2017)
The Framework (Para 50)
HDC Community Calculation based The requested contribution would be allocated to Facilities on the number of a project delivering benefit to the Great Bowden bedrooms: community 1 bed - £325.00 2 bed - £433.00 The calculation is based on HDC Assessment of Local 3 bed - £498.00 Community Provision and Developer Contribution (Roger 4 bed - £650.00 Tym Report), which highlights a need for more and 5 bed - £866.00 improved community facilities within the area to increase capacity.
List of Local Projects
Extension to the Community Pavilion to diversify usage
o This is to offer community groups using the hall storage space. It will also offer new groups the opportunity to use the storage space, and so make the Community hall more appealing.
o This has been evidenced in the business plan for the pavilion
A defibrillator machine, which is connected electrically to the Pavilion and fixed on the outside wall, is essential.
Play facilities require upgrading in order to support the need from new residents from new development.
The car park requires upgrading in order to support increased usage of both the pavilion community facility and recreation facilities.
Core Strategy: Policy CS12, Appendix 2 (Infrastructure Schedule),
Community Facilities and Developer Contributions (Roger Tym and Partners 2010)
Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (January 2017)
HDC Open All typologies to be CS Policy CS8 refers to open space standards and the Space provided on site need for new residential development to make provision to unless stated. meet the needs generated where there is a local Minimum deficiency. The Developer Guidance note also provides Area (ha) provided; detailed requirements for open space. together with commuted A commuted sum for maintaining the open space maintenance for over the first 15 years (if transferred to the minimum area of Council) is necessary to ensure the continued POS if HDC delivery and upkeep of the open space. adopts* The off-site financial contribution towards Cemetery & Parks & Gardens = Burial Grounds will be used to extend/upgrade the On site 0.01955ha Cemetery at Northampton Road, Market Harborough. £11,236.50 Core Strategy: Policy CS12, Appendix 2 (Infrastructure Outdoor Sports Schedule) Facilities = off site contribution Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document required (January 2017) £27,761.00 Provision for Open Space Sport and Recreation Amenity Greenspace = The Framework (Para 73) which encourages access to on site high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and 0.03519 recreation. The required on site provision will serve the £7,906.91 needs of the residents living on the site for play/recreation purposes. Natural and Semi Natural The site is considered to be in an urban location for semi Greenspace = natural and natural greenspace. All typologies are required 0.05865ha to be provided on site except Sports provision which is £15,255.86 shown to be in slight oversupply for this site. An off site contribution can be considered if requested by the Children and developer but must be agreed by the LPA. The commuted Young People = sum for maintenance will only be sought of the District on site LEAP Council or Parish Council adopts the POS. Provision 0.01173ha should be made for the POS to be maintained, as an £35,797.65 option by a management company. A contribution towards (or off-site the enhancement of greenways will be required to ensure contribution) the development is connected, and signed to, the recommended cycle and walking routes as per the LCC Allotments = cycling map of Harborough District. Any off site on site contributions will be used to enhance existing POS within 0.013685ha and the typology thresholds. The outdoor sports provision £824.15 contribution can be used at Gt Bowden Tennis Club. The (or off site courts including run off are 31.5m, the minimum LTA contribution of dimension with run off is 34.77m. There is sufficient space £821.10) to extend the three courts to 34.77m
Cemeteries (off site All POS to be provided on site, except Cemeteries and contribution) = Burial Grounds contribution. Any off site contributions to be £4,652.9 through negotiation of S106 with officers. If off site contributions are required this will either be for enhancement of existing facilities or provision of new facilities within the accessibility thresholds of the site for each typology. If more Open Space than the minimum provision for any typology is proposed by the developer, then commuted sums will be calculated on a pro rata basis.
HDC Bond In the event of payments required at some future date, the applicant will be required to enter into a bond with a bank or insurance company in order to prevent any default in payment through bankruptcy, liquidation or refusal to pay.
Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (January 2017)
HDC Monitoring District contribution It is appropriate for the Council to recover costs Fee – 15% of associated with the negotiating, production and application fee or subsequent monitoring of developer contributions. £250 per contribution This covers the legal costs of creating agreements, any costs associated with obtaining independent or specialist advice to validate aspects of the contributions and the costs of monitoring the payment and implementation of schemes and funding.
Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (January 2017)
ELRCCG £10,000 The proposed site is within the practice boundary of two (figure to practices located in Market Harborough, located at be updated based Coventry Road and Northampton Road. upon 17 dwlelings) One of the practices has highlighted an increase in workload of their clinicians due to additional patients. The practice has also highlighted an increase in traffic flow to the Medical Centre. The other practice has highlighted that additional equipment will be needed to manage the additional patients.
With the additional patients likely to register with the two practices, the practices will be looking to increase their clinicains and also the additional equipment to meet the increase in demand for GP Services
ELRCCG is requesting a capital contribution from the developer towards helping the practice with additional clinical capacity and the additional equipment required.
Core Strategy: Policy CS12, Appendix 2 (Infrastructure Schedule)
Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (January 2017)
Section 8 (in particular paragraph 70) of The Framework which seeks to create healthy inclusive communities.
*If the developer elects to maintain the POS there will be no commuted sum to pay. It is unlikely HDC will adopt the open space on site and an option should be given in the S106 to allow the developer or Parish Council to maintain whichever is preference
Planning Committee Report
Applicant: Langton Developments Ltd
Application Ref: 16/01847/FUL
Location: Land At Dingley Road, Great Bowden
Proposal: Change of use of agricultural land to cemetery use
Application Validated: 16.11.16
Target Date: 11.01.2017 (Extension of Time Agreed)
Case Officer: Susan Garbutt
Recommendation
Planning Permission is APPROVED subject the conditions listed in Appendix A.
The proposal would address the identified need for new capacity for cemetery /burial sites in the Harborough District whilst ensuring no adverse impact with regard to the area of separation designation, character and appearance of the area, residential amenity, highway safety and groundwater/drainage issues. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the terms of the Development Plan and related national guidance.
1. Site & Surroundings
1.1 The application site (hereafter referred to as ‘the site’), measures just 0.25 hectares and is located to the southern side of Dingley Road, on the eastern fringes of Great Bowden, circa 2.1km northeast of Market Harborough.
1.2 The site is bounded to the north and east by Dingley Road itself and agricultural fields to the south. The site adjoins the existing cemetery to the west.
Site Location Plan 1.4 There are no public footpaths located through the Site; but Footpath A54 is located to the south which connects Station Road to Dingley Road
1.5 The Site lies within the countryside, beyond the Limits to Development of Great Bowden, a Selected Rural Village. The Site is located within an Area of Separation as identified on the 2001 Local Plan Proposal’s Map, shown in green below (the Site is within parcel C).
Area of Separation
2. Site History
2.1 The site itself has no previous planning history. However it should be noted, there is a pending application for the erection of 17 dwellings (16/00802/FUL) to the west of the existing cemetery.
3. The Application Submission a) Summary of Proposals
3.1 The application seeks permission to change the use of a parcel of agricultural land to form an extension to the existing Great Bowden cemetery.
3.2 A pedestrian link from the existing cemetery would be created into the extended cemetery and the cemetery extension would be enclosed by boundary treatment, which would be agreed by way of condition. b) Schedule of Plans and Supporting Statements/Documents
3.3 Other than a Location Plan (L303 P200), the application has not been accompanied by any other plans or supporting documents.
3.4 However, the covering letter submitted with the application says:
d) Pre-application Engagement
3.5 The Applicant has a pending application for 17 dwellings adjacent the west side of the existing cemetery (16/00802/FUL). The Applicant has been advised that application 16/00802/FUL is to be recommended for refusal. One of the grounds relates to heritage assets. Officers consider that the scheme would have less than substantial harm on adjacent heritage assets and this harm is not outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme (i.e. open market and affordable housing), particularly where these benefits can be recognised on other sites where no heritage harm would be caused.
3.6 Discussions have been held between the Applicant and the Case Officer as to whether the cemetery extension would be a public benefit. It was agreed it would be a public benefit, but the Applicant was advised (14th November 2011) that there is no evidence as to why this particular 17 dwelling proposal itself generates need for land for a cemetery extension and therefore why, if 16/00802/FUL is approved, that could justify an obligation to deliver the extension.
3.7 Notwithstanding this advice, the Applicant submitted the application for the cemetery extension in support of 16/00802/FUL.
3.8 The Applicant has previously advised it would be their intention to transfer this land at nil charge to the Council by way of S106 providing the financial contribution to off-site green space, in accordance with the normal amount necessary to meet the needs arising from the development in relation to 16/00802/FUL) will be £x minus the open market value of the cemetery extension land (mechanism for valuation to be included in the s106). If the Council does not choose to exercise the transfer clause, then the £x financial contribution will be paid in full in the normal way.
4. Consultations and Representations
4.1 Consultations with technical consultees were carried out on the application.
4.2 The Site does not directly affect any residential properties and as such no neighbours have been directly consulted. However, a Site Notice was placed along Dingley Road and a Press Advert was placed in the Harborough Mail.
4.3 A summary of the technical consultee responses which have been received is set out below. If you wish to view comments in full, please request sight or go to:
www.harborough.gov.uk/planning a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees
4.4 Environment Agency
The proposed development will be acceptable only if a planning condition is imposed on the planning permission to protect the quality of controlled waters in the local area.
In addition the EA recommend an investigation is carried out ‘prior to the determination’ of this proposal to satisfy para 109 of the NPPF to adequately protect and safeguard water resources.
Officer Note: The EA have since confirmed that pre-determination was actually intended to say ‘pre-commencement’
4.5 Leicestershire County Council, Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA)
The proposed development would be considered acceptable to LCC as the LLFA subject to planning conditions being attached to any permission granted.
4.6 Leicestershire County Council, Highway Authority
The Local Highway Authority refers the LPA to current standing advice
4.7 Leicestershire County Council Principal Planning Archaeologist
Comments requested. None received to date (24/02/17)
4.8 Leicestershire County Council Senior Ecologist
Original comment I have no objections to the development, subject to retention of the roadside hedgerow and trees, and the wooded boundary to the existing cemetery; this should be a planning condition. (It would be acceptable to make small breaks in the hedges for access purposes).
The habitats and trees were surveyed in association with the adjacent application (16/00802/FUL) which showed that the grassland was improved and did not meet our Local Wildlife Site criteria (REC, August 2015 ‘Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey for Land off Dingley Road, Great Bowden’). There is no need to update this survey for this application.
However, I note that the additional badger survey did not cover this site, and therefore I recommend that one is undertaken prior to determination. It is possible to do this at any time of year. There was some badger evidence noted in previous surveys of adjacent land, and there is a sett in the vicinity, and it is possible that they are on this application site.
There is scope for biodiversity enhancement within the landscape scheme, through the use of locally native wildflower grassland seed mixes and locally native tree and shrub planting. Given the location of this site, adjacent to open countryside, I recommend that all tree and shrub planting is of locally native species, that the landscape scheme includes an element of wildflower meadow creation, and that a significant part of the site is under nature conservation management.
Revised Comment (22/12/16) following information from Applicant’s ecologist
I do not need a badger survey as it was covered by the original one. It would be advisable to require (as a planning condition) a badger survey update prior to each phase of development, if a year elapses since the last survey.
4.9 HDC Neighbourhood & Green Spaces Officer
The recent cemetery and burial grounds strategy (draft format) has identified Market Harborough and Great Bowden as requiring additional burial capacity.
The proposal will provide additional spaces to meet the burial requirement of the community in the vicinity of the site
Further geotechnical appraisals will need to be undertaken to meet the requirements of the Environment Agency if the application is approved in principle.
4.10 Great Bowden Parish Council
Comments requested. None received to date (24/02/17)
b) Local Residents
4.11 To date (24/02/17), 5 letters of objection have been received. The letters raise the following points:
The land is not suitable – it floods (photographic evidence was also provided) The land is agricultural The land would extend the village boundary Potential increase in traffic on an already very busy, narrow road If additional space is required it should be undertaken by HDC not a development company who are looking to build in the Dingley Road area
5. Planning Policy Considerations
5.1 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that:
“Where in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the Development Plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material consideration indicates otherwise.”
5.2 Unless stated, an explanation of the development plan polices; material considerations, evidence base and other documents referred to can be found at the beginning of the Agenda under ‘All Agenda Items Common Planning Policy’ a) Development Plan
5.3 The current Local Development Plan consists the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2006-2028 (adopted November 2011) and Saved Policies of the Harborough District Local Plan (adopted 2001).
Harborough District Core Strategy
5.4 The following aspects of the CS are notably relevant to this application.
Policy CS5 Policy CS8 Policy CS9 Policy CS10 Policy CS11 Policy CS12 Policy CS13 Policy CS17
The saved polices of the Harborough District 2001 Local Plan
5.5 Of the limited number policies that remain extant, Policy HS/8 (Limits to Development) and Policy EV/3 are relevant to this application
Harborough District Emerging Local Plan
5.6 Harborough Districts’ new Local Plan will set out planning policies in the district up to 2031
5.7 A Pre-submission draft Local Plan is currently under preparation. It is anticipated that following approval by Council this draft Plan will be published for a minimum period of six weeks for any interested parties to make representations on the ‘soundness’ of that draft Plan.
5.8 The Local Plan work programme is set out in the Table below:
5.9 The emerging Local Plan carries limited weight at the present time.
Great Bowden Neighbourhood Plan
5.10 Great Bowden Parish Council applied for the designation of a Neighbourhood Area on 29th September 2015 under the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012.
5.11 The application was published for a 6 week period ending on 27 November 2015 and was approved by the Portfolio Holder for Planning Services on 5 December 2015.
5.12 The Neighbourhood Plan carries limited weight at the present time. b) Material Planning Considerations
5.13 Material Planning Considerations relevant to this application are:
The National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework / NPPF)
The NPPF does not specifically refer to cemetery provision but stresses the importance of planning positively for the provision of community facilities.
National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
The NPPG provides advice on assessing the potential impact of development on water quality. c) Emerging Local Plan Evidence Base
5.14 The following emerging local plan evidence base is relevant to this application
Market Harborough Landscape Character Assessment and Capacity Study (April 2009; The Landscape Partnership)
The site falls within the Foxton to Great Bowden Slopes Landscape Character Area. Part of the site is within landscape parcel 10 which is identified as having ‘Medium High’ landscape capacity to accommodate development in future.
Areas of Separation Review
The Review was produced by HDC in December 2011 to assess the boundaries of Areas of Separation and suggest appropriate new boundaries that take into account the spatial strategy for the District, as well as proposed development within the Core Strategy. The site falls within Parcel C of the Market Harborough and Great Bowden Area of Separation. The description states that “relatively small paddocks/fields have a close association with the village” and “there are areas on the immediate fringes of Great Bowden where limited development would not appear to prejudice the degree of separation due to form of the village”.
Draft Cemetery Strategy
The Draft Cemetery Strategy is an evidence base that identifies needs and shortfalls and suggests ways forward in delivering additional burial capacity. Notwithstanding the draft nature of the Strategy, the information provided within it is factual and demonstrates the requirement for additional burial space in and around Market Harborough. d) Other Relevant Documents
5.15 The following documents should be noted
Circular 11/95 Annex A - Use of Conditions in Planning Permission e) Other Relevant Information
Reason for Committee Decision
5.16 This application is to be determined by Planning Committee because it has been called in by Cllr Knowles and because there are 5 letters of counter representation.
6. Assessment a) Principle of Development
6.1 There is a pressing need to find new burial land space with the Harborough District to meet increasing pressures, demands and needs. The amount of land indicated would provide a suitable extension to the Great Bowden cemetery but isn’t likely to provide a solution to finding a replacement for Northampton Road, Market Harborough. That said it would provide an opportunity to secure an extension to that cemetery (which will be needed) and at the same time giving the Council extra capacity within their cemetery stock until the situation at Northampton Road is resolved. The need for such an extension is an important material planning consideration which needs to be carefully balanced when considering this planning application against the fact that an area of agricultural land which is also designated an Area of Separation (AOS) would be lost as a result of this development proposal.
6.2 Whilst an area of agricultural land would be lost, the amount is relatively small (0.25ha). Furthermore, this land is not classified as being the Best and Most Versatile (best and most versatile being defined as land in Grade 1, 2 and 3a). Furthermore, whilst the site is within an AOS, the 2011 AOS Review advised Parcel C (which the Site is part of) is “where limited development would not appear to prejudice the degree of separation due to form of the village”.
6.3 In addition, given the site would be adjacent to the existing cemetery and boundary treatment and landscaping can be controlled by way of condition, there would be no material change to the immediate character of the area. b) Highways
6.4 The Highway Authority has no objections to the application. There is currently no parking available at the existing cemetery and as such on-street parking is used. c) Flooding / Drainage
6.5 The Case Officer is aware the application site has flooded previously and the local concern about using this site because of flooding. However, neither the EA or LLFA have raised any objections to the application subject to condition.
d) Residential Amenity
6.6 The proposed extension of the cemetery could result in an increase in levels of activity on the land but due to the nature of the activity and the distance from the site to the nearest residential properties it is not considered that neighbouring amenity would be adversely affected. e) Other Matters
6.7 If Members agree with the Officer recommendation to approve the application this should not be linked in anyway with application 16/00802/FUL for the reasons given at paragraph’s 3.5-3.8 earlier within this report.
7. The Planning Balance / Conclusion
7.1 The proposal would address the identified need for new capacity for cemetery /burial sites in the Harborough District whilst ensuring no adverse impact with regard to the area of separation designation, character and appearance of the area, residential amenity, highway safety and groundwater/drainage issues. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the terms of the Development Plan and related national guidance.
8. Recommended Planning Conditions
8.1 If Members are minded to approved the application a list of suggested conditions is attached to Appendix A
Appendix A – Suggested Planning Conditions
1. Full Planning Permission Commencement The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. REASON: To accord with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with the following approved plan: L303 P200 – SITE LOCATION REASON: For the avoidance of doubt.
3. No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until details of the proposed boundary treatment, landscaping, any changes in levels and pedestrian access from the existing cemetery to the permitted site have been submitted to and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. REASON: In the interests of visual amenity, the character and appearance of the area and connectivity and to accord with the Harborough District Council Core Strategy Policy CS11.
4. Boundary Structures No impermeable boundary structures shall be constructed as part of the proposed planning permission REASON: To prevent the increase of offsite flooding by ensuring the satisfactory management of existing surface water flow routes.
5. Impermeable Area No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until such time as a plan detailing the amount impermeable area proposed within the site, and subsequent surface water drainage proposal has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority REASON: To prevent any increase in flood risk through the appropriate management of surface water.
6. All burials in the cemetery shall comply with the following: (i) Remains must not be buried within 250 metres of any well, spring or borehole from which a drinking water supply is drawn. (ii) The place of interment should be at least 30 metres from any other spring or watercourse and at least 10 metres away from any field drain. (iii) The base of all burial pits on the site must maintain a minimum of one metre clearance above the highest natural water table. (Any variability of the water table should be taken into account). REASON: To protect the quality of controlled waters in the local area.
7. No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until an investigation has been undertaken to ensure the approved use of the land does not contribute to or is out at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of water pollution. REASON: To protect the quality of controlled waters in the local area and to comply with NPPF Paragraph 109.
NOTES TO APPLICANT
1. The applicant is reminded of the Notes to Applicant set out within the Lead Local Flood Authority formal response dated 16 January 2017.
2. The applicant is reminded of the Notes to Applicant set out within the Environment Agency formal response dated 6 December 2016.
Planning Committee Report
Applicant: Miller Homes Limited
Application Ref: 16/01501/OUT
Location: Land North Of Oaks Road. Great Glen
Proposal: Outline application for the erection of up to 170 dwellings, new access, landscaping and other associated infrastructure (access to be considered)
Application Validated: 21.09.2016
Target Date: 21.12.2016 (Extension of Time Agreed)
Case Officer: Sarah Luckham
Recommendation
Background: This decision is to be taken by the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) under appeal APP/F2415/W/17/3167654. Whilst the appeal was made in January, it has yet to be validated.1 The Council does not refuse or grant permission now an appeal has been made.
It is recommended that the Council submission to the appeal should state that if the Council had taken a decision it would have resolved to approve planning permission, for the reasons set out in the committee report and subject to the appended Planning Conditions (Appendix B) and completion of a s106 (Appendix A), and similar obligation to secure appropriate off site highway mitigation.
1. Site & Surroundings
1.1 The application site lies immediately to the east of Great Glen. It is comprised of two agricultural fields, totaling approximately 8.48 ha in size. The northerly (and larger) field is currently arable land, and the southern (smaller) field is used for grazing. The two fields are currently separated by existing hedging, and the land falls from north east to south west.
1 The applicant has told the Council that as the appeal was lodged in good faith in January 2017. However, no appeal start date has been given by PINS.
Figure 1: Location Plan
1.2 The southern boundary of the site lies on the north side of Oaks Road, along which there are existing hedgerows. A bridleway (C14) is also located along Oaks Road, to the south of the site.
1.3 To the west, the site is bounded by the rear gardens of dwellings located along Coverside Road. These currently form the built extent of Great Glen.
1.4 There are fields adjacent to the northern boundary, which is crossed by a public footpath (G13). In the western corner of this boundary there is access through to Coverside Road.
1.5 The Glen Oaks semi natural woodland lies adjacent to the eastern boundary of the application site. 1.6 The southern most field includes ridge and furrow, and the lowest point of the site is located within the south western corner of this field.
1.7 There is an existing pond within the northern most field as can be seen in Aerial Photograph 1 below.
Figure 2: Aerial Photograph
Figure 3: Aerial Photograph 2 showing the wider context
Photograph 1: Looking south east across the most northerly field
Photograph 2: Looking along the northern boundary towards the west
Photograph 3: Looking northerly across the northernmost field
Photograph 4: Looking northwards across the southern field
Photograph 5: Looking eastwards across the southernmost field
Photograph 6: Looking east along Oaks Road from southern boundary
Photograph 7: Looking west along Oaks Road from southern boundary
Photograph 8: looking south along Coverside Road
2. Site History
2.1 There is no previous planning site history.
3. The Application Submission
a) Summary of Proposals
3.1 This application seeks outline planning permission for up to 170 new dwellings, new access, landscaping and other associated infrastructure. All matters except for ‘access’ are reserved for future consideration. Access would be via a new vehicular point from Oaks Road to the south of the site.
3.2 The illustrative layout submitted with the application indicates that the developable area of the site would be 4.97 ha., with the remaining 3.51 ha. being used for open space provision.
3.3 The open space would be located primarily in the north east and southwest corners of the site, and along the northern, southern and eastern boundaries.
3.4 In addition there would be open space adjacent to the proposed swale that would run north- south within the site as shown on Figure 4 below. This would feed into an infiltration basin located within the south west corner of this field.
3.5 An element of the ridge and furrow would be retained within the south western corner and the existing hedgerow between the northern and southern fields would also be retained.
3.6 The proposals include the provision of new footpaths/cycleways within the site along the southern boundary, and along the swale to link with public footpath C13 in the adjacent field to the north. The proposal also includes a new footway along the northern side of Oaks Road to provide pedestrian access to and from the village centre.
3.7 Proposals include for a children’s play area as shown in Figure 4, and additional planting around the site boundary, including the western boundary abutting existing residential development.
3.8 The illustrative plan also shows the intention that a row of dwellings could lie back to back with those on Coverside Road.
3.9 The illustrative plan also introduces the concept for a hierarchy of streets within the proposed development.
3.10 Although a matter for subsequent applications, the Design and Access Statement submitted with this application indicates that whilst most dwellings would be limited to 2 storey, there would be an element of 2.5 storey dwellings as well, but that these would not be located along the more sensitive boundary locations.
3.11 Proposals include 40% affordable dwellings, and it is intended that the roads would be built to adoptable standards.
Figure 4: Illustrative Layout
b) Schedule of Plans and Supporting Statements/Documents Submitted with the Original Application Submission
3.12 The application was accompanied by the following drawings and supporting documentation:
Schedule of Plans
Illustrative Layout (02016-08 Rev D) Site Location Design and Access Statement Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy Landscape and Visual Appraisal Archaeological Desk Based Assessment Breeding Bird Survey Great Crested Newt Survey Transport Assessment (TA) Travel Plan Contamination report Arboricultural Survey and Report Planning Statement
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Sensitive information) Phase 1 Geoenvironmental Desk Study
c) Amended Plans and/or Additional Supporting Statements/Documents Submitted since Validation of the Application
3.13 The following additional information has been provided by the applicant.
Bat Activity Survey Method Statement for a Geophysical Survey ADC Assessment of the Operation of Oaks Road 17 Jan 2017 Agricultural Land Classification ADC Response to Local Residents Review of the Transport Assessment Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy Rev C Jan 2017 Landscape and Visual Note Feb 2017 Letter from Pegasus to the applicant (shared with the Council) 17 Feb 2017 HDA Landscape and Visual Assessment Methodology HDA Ref: 436.14 v3 Dec 16
d) Pre-application Engagement
3.14 The Applicant engaged with Harborough District Council and the Parish Council prior to the submission of this planning application.
3.15 In summary, the Statement of Community Involvement submitted with the application indicates engagement with the following:
Great Glen Parish Council A total of eight meetings held during the course of 2015 and 2016. Leicestershire County Council (LCC) Meetings with County Highways prior to submission of application Harborough District Council Meeting with Officers Independent Design Review A Design Review meeting took place with the applicant, Parish Council and Opun (a regional design review panel for the East Midlands) in attendance
4. Consultations and Representations
4.1 Consultation with the technical consultees and local community has been carried out on the original application submission.
4.2 Site Notices were placed on 11/10/2016. The Press Notice was published on 13/10/2016.
4.3 A summary of the technical consultee responses which have been received are set out below. Comments which relate to developer contributions are set out in Appendix A. If you wish to view comments in full, please request sight or go to www.harborough.gov.uk/planning
a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees
4.4 HDC Contaminated Land Officer
‘The transport plan completely ignores the fact that oaks road is for practical purposes a single carriage way due to cars parked essentially permanently in the carriageway along the entire length of the road from the junction with Stretton Road and east to the junction with St Thomas's Road (there are marked parking spaces in the carriageway) if you look at google street view there are images from 3 years all showing the same thing
The trip rates identified in section 4 of the transport assessment are also unreasonably low. The model has used a town which does not fit with the nature of great glen (there is near 0 employment opportunities in great glen ) and the nearest high school is next village over the trip rates seem particularly low given the lack of employment in the area if you assume each house has only 1 car the trip rate assumes only approximately half of the proposed dwelling will have a vehicle leaving the site during morning peak times.
Given the nature of the area a 2-way trip rate nearer 1.5 movements per house per peak time (up from the reports ~0.7) would seem more appropriate for the rural area (which would give 255 2-way vehicle movements up from the reports ~128 which given the predominance of more than 1 working adult in each household seems more reasonable
However given the properties on oaks road are a substantial distance from the kerb there is unlikely to be a specific air quality issue’.
4.5 Severn Trent Water
No objection to the proposal subject to condition requiring the submission of drainage plans for the disposal of surface water and foul sewage have been submitted to and approved by the LPA
4.6 Leicestershire County Council Highway Authority (CHA)
A study was commissioned jointly by Leicestershire County Council and Harborough District Council testing the cumulative impact of development in the Kibworths and local area. This study has now been published and the County Highway Authority and Local Planning Authority’s are considering the outcomes of this study with regard to formal highways advice and the determination of pending applications in the local area.
Given the potential cumulative highway impact of the various developments currently pending it is essential that a full and informed assessment is made prior to determination of applications whose impact might cumulatively be severe without appropriate strategic improvements and mitigation.
The above proposal would produce a significant number of trips and so the output of this study will help inform the cumulative impact of development and/or the required mitigation strategy of development in that area.
At the time of writing, formal comments are still awaited from County Highways.
However the study indicates that whilst the impacts of the proposal before members would be severe, these impacts could be mitigated through an appropriate scheme.
As such it is likely that County Highways may advise a refusal of the application pending agreement of suitable mitigation, which the Local Planning Authority can deal with through the course of the appeal process. I would therefore draw members attention to paragraph 203 of the NPPF which says that:
‘Local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations. Planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through a planning condition’.
LCC Highways comments will be reported verbally at Committee.
4.7 Leicestershire County Council Senior Planning Archaeologist
Initial Comments:
‘The application site lies close to the Roman settlement off Stretton Road, which was investigated in 2011, and we would like to see a geophysical survey with a view to subsequent archaeological trenching prior to determination of this application. We will review the results of the geophysical survey when available and then advise on what level of trenching will be necessary to inform a decision about the potential archaeological impacts of the proposed development. I have also recommended a review of the significance of the Ridge and Furrow earthworks within the application site in relation to the setting of nearby heritage assets, including the Scheduled medieval manorial site in Burton Overy. You may wish to consult Historic England about the potential setting concerns’.
Following the Geophysical Survey, trial trenching is scheduled for March 2017.
The County Archaeologist has therefore advised that:
‘In the current context in the absence of the trenching results, should determination be on the cards, we would advise refusal on the grounds of a lack of information to inform the planning decision contrary to paragraphs 128 and 129 of the NPPF and Policy CS11 d) iv of the Local Plan’.
4.8 Leicestershire County Council Senior Planning Ecologist
‘The surveys submitted in support of the application Mott MacDonald, September 2016 were completed at the sub-optimal time of year (during February). This is unacceptable, particularly when a site partially comprises grassland, which was assessed as being Improved grassland in the survey. However, I have also checked over the Phase 1 survey of the Parish completed by our own surveyor last year. This also indicates that the grassland is of low botanical value (although this assessment was completed from public Rights of Way, not following a full assessment of the site). We are therefore satisfied that the site is very unlikely to meet the Local Wildlife Site criteria and no further habitat surveys are required. The eastern site boundary comprises Glen Oaks, an existing woodland. This must be buffered from the development.
We note from the ecological reports submitted in support of the application that no evidence of protected species were recorded on site. No great crested newts were recorded during the newt surveys and no evidence of badgers was found. The Breeding Bird survey indicated that there was evidence of breeding birds on site, but this was not significant with the highest density being within Glen Oaks, which will be retained.
We welcome the proposed Illustrative Layout (02016-08 Rev D) as this retains buffers between the existing ecological networks on site, Glen Oaks woodland and the existing hedgerows. We would recommend that the woodland is protected by at least a 10 meter buffer from the development (including plot boundaries). Hedgerows should be protected by a 5 meter buffer. This site also provides opportunities for ecological enhancement, the SUDs feature should be designed to hold some water at all times and should be planted with semi-natural native vegetation.
Consideration should be given to planting the northern end of the site as a species-rich meadow. In summary, we have no objections to this development, but would recommend the following:
- Final layout to be in accordance with the Illustrative Layout submitted (02016-08 Rev D). Any changes must incorporate a 10 meter buffer between the development and the woodland and a 5 meter buffer between hedgerows and the development.
- Lighting scheme to be designed to minimise light spill onto existing vegetation.
- SUDs feature and Open Space to include ecological enhancements.
- Recommendations in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Mott MacDonald, September 2016) to be followed.
- Ecology surveys are only considered to be valid for 2 years. Updated protected species surveys will therefore be needed in Spring/Summer 2018 in support of either the Reserved Matters Application or prior to the commencement of the development, whichever is soonest’
4.9 Leicestershire County Council Lead Local Flood Authority
Following initial concerns and requests for additional information the final response received on 08/02/2017 says that :
‘Leicestershire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority advises the Local Planning Authority that the proposed development would be considered acceptable if the following planning conditions are attached to any permission granted’.
4.10 Leicestershire County Council Forestry Team Leader
‘The main development site is essentially an open pasture with no trees within it. The perimeter trees on the west are in hedgerows or just within private gardens; clearly the developer owes a duty of care to adjacent tree owners to ensure that his operations do no compromise their trees’ health or appearance. To the east is the woodland W1 which is graded as A and clearly an important feature in visual and nature conservation terms.
The indicative layout proposes a conspicuous separation between any development and the adjacent boundaries, so I do not see that there would be any serious conflicts between any adjacent trees and the required construction. Most of the internal hedgeline H2 is retained.
I don’t think there is any arboricultural reason to refuse consent’.
4.11 Leicestershire County Council (Developer Contributions)
Suggested Developer Contributions are outlined in Appendix A below.
4.12 Harborough District Housing Enabling and Community Infrastructure Officer (28/09/2016)
‘Our Affordable Housing requirement will be to seek 40% Affordable Housing of the total site yield In accordance with Policy CS3. On a site proposal of 170 units , this will equal 68 AH units. Our tenure split requirements are for the affordable requirement to be provided as 60% rented (40 units) and 40% (28 units) be provided as intermediate or shared ownership. How ever we can be flexible with our tenure requirements.
We will not stipulate our specific unit mix and tenure split for the affordable house types at this point in time. We will provide our exacting requirements if and when a full application is submitted. This ensures greater accuracy in our request for specific unity types and accords more accurately with our housing need profile at a point when the scheme is more likely to be progress
A wider strategic assessment for delivering AH is currently under review. We may as a result consider other options / ways for delivering AH. I have checked there is a detailed Planning Statement which commits to the provision of onsite AH. The applicant is advised to consult our RP partners at the earliest opportunity. ( RP contact list is contained in the below noted guidance note).I am also attaching our Guidance Note which makes reference to SHMA and the house type profiles needed in Harborough District. The applicant’s proposals for housing on this site should reflect this.
I have requested housing need and demand data from our HSS Team to guide our unit type preferences. I am happy to discuss matters with the developer should they require further advice’.
4.13 Harborough District Council Neighbourhood and Green Spaces Officer
‘The site requires on site POS for all typologies except Outdoor Sports provision, which is in oversupply in the accessibility threshold of 4km( see not below concerning off site contributions for outdoor sport)
The provision for Children and Young People is indicated to be a LEAP. This play area should be a minimum of 1000m2 and should be to NEAP specification and have some challenging pieces of equipment for older children and a kick about area for informal ball games. A buffer of at least 30m from residential properties should be included. The plans and specification for this area will need to be submitted for approval prior to commencement of development.
I note the tree survey that has been undertaken on the site and the wooded area to the east and the suggestion that the woodland should be incorporated into the design of the site. The woodland should be an amenity for enjoyment by residents of Gt Glen, and as such should be capable of sustaining informal access for walking. While the survey suggest RPZs and specification for protection of trees, it does not go as far as suggesting a management plan to make the woodland suitable for public access, or suggest a long term management plan for the woodland to maintain it in a satisfactory condition. These document should be included and approved prior to commencement of development’.
‘I note the swales and attenuation lagoon. These features can count towards semi natural green space provision, but should be planted for habitat and wildlife.
Gt Glen does not currently have allotment provision; the site should be capable of incorporating allotments. These should be fenced with a dog proof fence and laid out to ½ size plots ie 125m2. Provision should be made to supply with water and the plots should be accessible through a field gate for vehicles. There should be a minimum of 400mm of good quality topsoil on all plots. The minimum number of plots is usually 10 plots. If this is over the amount of allotment land specified for the development the balance can be subtracted from other typologies.
The greenways contribution is to enhance the existing sustainable transport network and to create links from the site. I note the footpaths and links to the existing PROW. An off site contribution will be sought to improve the access an signage to off site footpaths and networks.
Outdoor sports provision contribution should be made to enable to enhancements to the Gt Glen Recreation Ground.
The cemetery and burial grounds contribution will be used to provide additional burial spaces at Gt Glen Cemetery or other burial ground within the accessibility threshold of 2km’.
The Officer also refers the Case Officer to the Great Glen Neighbourhood Plan (Examination Version) Policies and has also calculated the required provision in terms of open space, sport and recreation, with required financial sums required under a S106 agreement for off site works, and maintenance where/if required. This information can be found in Appendix A.
4.14 Harborough District Council Parish Liaison and Engagement Officer
Developer contribution sought to be used to improve community facilities in the locality as detailed within Appendix A.
Details of appropriate projects in the Locality is funding of a new community centre as laid out in the current Great Glen Neighbourhood Plan Re-submission dated November 2016:
4.15 East Leicestershire and Rutland CCG NHS
‘We have not had any further correspondence with the practice following the email correspondence we had in October. I have been waiting for a response with regards to the question the practice asked about using s106 money to fund Doctors space in the proposed new community centre in Great Glen - attached email sent.
We have had discussion with the parish council and this contribution will help towards funding the development of the proposed community centre. I have attached the s106 application for your consideration’
The S106 application indicates that :
‘The proposed site is within the practice area of Kibworth Health Centre, which has a branch surgery in Great Glen and therefore likely to have an impact due to the increased population. Kibworth Health Centre have stated the following:
We do feel very much that our premises at Great Glen are so small and not fit for purpose and that taking any additional patients would be difficult as there has already been considerable development in Great Glen.
We currently only have two consulting rooms and a very tiny waiting room and although we have previously looked to extend, we do not have the land available to do this. Would it be possible to use s106 money to fund Doctors space in the proposed new community centre in Great Glen.
ELRCCG is requesting a capital contribution from the developer towards the use of Doctors space in the proposed new community centre in Great Glen’
The requested sum has been included within the suggested Planning Obligations outlined within Appendix A. It should be noted that in order to be CIL compliant the requested sums can only contribute towards the health provision element, and not as a general contribution towards the Community Centre development.
4.16 LCC Landscape Consultant
The Council’s Landscape Consultant, The Landscape Partnership (TLP), has reviewed the Landscape and Visual aspects of the proposals, with detailed comments submitted within an initial report.
The purpose of the initial report was to review the information submitted as part of the planning application in relation to landscape and visual aspects to determine
the accuracy of the information provided, particularly in relation to current guidance and best practice and the methodology used for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments;
whether there is any missing information or additional information that is required in order to effectively assess the application; whether there is agreement or not on the assessed effects of the proposed development, based on a professional judgement utilising the submitted information and an assessment on site; if the submitted scheme is acceptable in landscape and visual terms
In addition to considering submitted documentation, TLP also carried out a visit to both the site and local area.
Whilst the full report is available on the website, the conclusions in brief were that:
‘there is no methodology provided, and hence it is difficult to verify the levels of Sensitivity, Magnitude and Significance provided; there are number of locations where effects on views and site features are not described in terms of level of effect; it is important that future development does not have an adverse impact on topography which is a defining feature of the landscape character of the area; the factors that are less suited to development are the location to the upper edge of the valley slopes and the openness to public and private views. Factors that are more suited are the relationship with the existing built edge of Great Glen and the measure of enclosure provided by the Glen Oaks shelterbelt from the wider rural countryside to the east; TLP consider that the sensitivity of the Site itself is Medium. In terms of the effects on landscape character TLP consider that the extent of important effects at Major/Moderate and above on landscape character overall are restricted to a relatively short distance of the site, within c.300m and that this would be to the north and south with built form (Coverside Road) and vegetation (Glen Oaks) restricting significant landscape effects to the west and east respectively; the most notable effects on landscape features would be the loss of the agricultural fields and an area of ridge and furrow pasture on the field to the south of the Site. The ability to practically retain a meaningful part of this feature as indicated on the Illustrative Layout is questioned; there would be a loss of roadside hedgerow to Oaks Road but this could be replaced with a new feature set behind the sight lines from a new junction; TLP considers that there would be a Major to Major/Moderate effect on the Site itself, although this would be typical of any similar development on a greenfield site; TLP identified some greater effects on some local receptors than identified within the LVA however ‘based on the Illustrative layout and with a suitable hard and soft landscape scheme the adverse effects while significant are unlikely to result in an unacceptable effect on the visual component of residential amenity’’
The report also indicates that :
‘The following features of the layout are positive and in part reflect some of the guidance in the 2014 Landscape Capacity Study for Parcel 11.
a. Retention and suitable offset from Glen Oaks woodland
b. Placing open space to higher ground to north-east
c. Restricting development to the southern part of Parcel 11
d. Incorporation of a new planted buffer to the north (LVA para 5.2.2) – however this is not shown on the Illustrative Layout
e. Internal green corridor along the swale linking with the existing pond and new attenuation pond to the south-west.
The following elements are questioned and/or need further enhancement/clarification:
a. The ability to retain areas of ridge and furrow within the layout and in particular by the attenuation pond
b. Whether retained hedges are to be in communal ownership/management or any lengths in private control.
c. The depth and character of planting on the interface with Oaks Road – to ensure that built form is not too prominent as seen from Oaks Road, London Road and Bridleway C25. The importance of this boundary was emphasised in the Parcel 11 guidance. However, there is variable description of this e.g. page 45 of the DAS and para 5.2.2 in the LVA.
d. Arrangement of four units to the west of the existing pond as no close car/garage access.
e. Proximity of units to the north-west corner: existing houses on Coverside Road due to changes in levels and potential overlooking into the existing properties.
f. The green link running east west on Page 43 of the DAS appears on the Illustrative Layout to be a road with occasional street trees that may be difficult to deliver
g. The ability to deliver footpaths outside the site e.g. through Glen Oaks as shown on the layout on page 39 of the DAS.
Although TLP requested some additional information in support of the application, they concluded that on balance they: . ‘consider that in landscape and visual terms the site has the potential for an appropriately designed residential development on the edge of the village subject to the provision of suitable additional materials and clarifications as listed above’
In response the applicant provided a Note, prepared by Pegasus Planning Group (Note: Not the applicants original Landscape Consultant). This note reviewed both the original submitted LVA and the TLP response.
TLP considered the Pegasus Note (February 2017) concluding that:
‘3.1 The Landscape and Visual Note by Pegasus provides a useful commentary on both the HDA LVA and TLP review. TLP still have some differences of opinion with both HDA and Pegasus as stated in the above review.
3.2 It is still considered that the request for additional information made in the original TLP review of the application would be beneficial to help assess the landscape and visual impacts of the scheme.
3.3 Nonetheless it is TLP’s opinion that in landscape and visual terms the principle of residential development on the site is broadly acceptable. While the site is a relatively elevated location there is good visual containment to the east by mature woodland and existing residential development on Coverside Road to the west. However, there are more open public views to the south from Oaks Road Burton Brook valley including Bridleway C25 and from the north across the plateau landscape including footpath C13. From these more exposed aspects substantive landscape mitigation is required to assimilate the development into the local landscape.
3.4 Should the outline application on balance be recommended for approval then the following features should be required as part of any subsequent reserved matters application to inform the pattern and scale of development.
a. Series of long cross sections both across the Sence valley and Burton Brook to demonstrate the visibility of the proposed built form and proposed planting at year 1 and year 15. This will guide the height and location of development b. Closer sections from Coverside Road to Glen Oaks to show the relationship of the proposed built form and accompanying landscape mitigation on the site next to the closest existing houses on Coverside Road. This will also guide the height and location of development c. A landscape strategy for the site including: i. land uses within areas of public open space ii. location and means retention of existing landscape features iii. tree and shrub planting to the southern and northern boundaries and linkage with the existing woodland to the east. iv. mitigation for public views towards the site and in particular from C13 and C25 – through plans and cross sections v. the landscape treatment of the western boundary with the existing properties on Coverside Road and how this will be secured in the long-term vi. footpath routes into across and through the site and their surfacing vii. areas of planting, typical plant sizes, species and densities viii. play provision and signage ix. arrangements for the establishment and long-term maintenance of areas of public open space’.
This was followed up by a letter from Pegasus to the applicants, and shared with the Council and TLP, noting the matters agreed with TLP, and suggestions in terms of moving forward (as outlined below.
The final advisory comments from TLP therefore does not raise an objection but says:
‘I am content with the approach and points being made by Pegasus in the letter of 17-2-16.
A reserved matters scheme could address the pints I have raised and may reduce housing numbers but this is accepted by Pegasus’
4.17 LCC Environmental Health Officer
Raises no objections subject to conditions that have been included within the suggested list outlined in Appendix B.
4.18 Historic England (31/10/2016)
‘The application(s) should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation and archaeological advice’.
4.19 HDC Conservation Officer
‘The application site is on the edge of the village of Great Glen. Great Glen has no Conservation Area and the site is not adjacent to any Listed Buildings. The development will result in the loss of an area of Ridge and Furrow, however I would refer to the archaeologists with regards to the significance of this. In my opinion the proposed development will not result in harm to any designated Heritage Assets or their setting. The Ridge and Furrow is considered to be a non designated Heritage Asset however it could be argued that the resulting harm to this is outweighed by the public benefit of the proposal, as per paragraph 135 of the NPPF’.
No request made.
b) Local Community
4.21 The application has generated a significant level of objection from the local community. More than 340 of objections have been received. It should be noted that some households have submitted more than one response.
4.22 Several of the objection letters/emails/on-line comments received are very detailed and in some instances have responded specifically to the applicants submitted consultant reports. Where appropriate these have been forwarded on to the Council’s own consultees to consider.
4.23 Whilst regard has been had to the detailed comments in assessing this application, it is impractical to copy these verbatim, they are however available to view on the website.
4.24 The comments are briefly summarised in Table 1 below according to ‘topic’ area..
COMMENT
Principle: Unacceptable land grabbing Already too much development in Great Glen No more houses needed Worried this might be the first phase Village is becoming a sprawl 170 homes is too many Village has recently had increase in population Already houses for sale in Great Glen – use these. No need for more Still building on Stretton Road – why consider more when these are not yet finished There will be no village Am against greenfield land being used instead of brown field land Will soon join up with Oadby or even Burton Overy Over development of the village Village expanding too quickly Think village needs less big houses and affordable housing for younger or older relatives of village residents. Destruction of rural environment The boundary between dwellings on Coverside Road and the application site demarks the limit for housing to Great Glen since the Village Design Statement of 2005. Fields also designated as environmentally significant since the Village Design Statement and Neighbourhood Plan. SHLAA identifies the site as 7th out of 8 possible sites (1 being suitable, 8 unsuitable) with 14 negatives identified . Given Red rating Is not the Great Glen Neighbourhood Plan Reserve site/ There is already a reserve site within the Neighbourhood Plan for housing. SHLAA identifies site as being outside the current village envelope Quota for houses has been reached Great Glen identified as a Rural Centre within the Local Plan where new housing should only be considered on a relatively small scale. Proposed site does not fit this
description Not in keeping with the Neighbourhood Plan, which should be the prime material consideration as born out in recent appeal decisions Does not accord with the emerging Local Plan as Great Glen only suited for limited new development Site in an area previously identified as an Area of Particularly Attractive Countryside Suitable alternative sites are identified within the Neighbourhood Plan There are more suitable sites in the village Concerns raised regarding methodology for calculating the housing land supply figures Great Glen Neighbourhood plan should carry some, if not full, weight. CPRE are of the view that existing planning permissions should be built before greenfield sites released Believe is contrary to policy CS17 The Neighbourhood Plan has been published for examination An independent assessment of the suitability of the site was carried out and found to be unsuitable for development (SHLAA) Core Strategy says that additional housing development in Great Glen development other than small scale infill is not planned. Therefore the application contravenes this. A lack of a 5 year housing land supply appears to be the justification presented Representation made regarding weight of Neighbourhood Plan Contrary to Policies CS2, CS8, New Local Plan
Flooding and drainage: Properties adjoining the site are currently subjected to flooding at times of heavy rain due to poor drainage management in the field. Excavating the land will add to the problem with potential risk to properties due to shift in water table Drains already cannot cope Village has flooding problems at the proposed roundabout area at bottom of Oaks Road. This will not be remedied by a roundabout as water flushes down both Oak Hill and the drains coming down the hill. Concern of increased flooding and affect on insurance premiums Sewers will not cope – as identified within the Sewer Capacity Assessment improvements are likely to be required Similar proposal on the site was rejected a number of years ago Concerned will exacerbate flooding in the village Concern regarding potential flood risk for St Thomas’S Road which already has problems and there have been recent surveys of gullies. Risk of increased flooding of the River Sence The Flood Risk Assessment is flawed and attenuation volumes are likely to be under estimated Development should not go ahead until the capacity issues of the sewer system are resolved
Ecology: Concerned about the wildlife in and around the spinney There will be no consideration of wildlife What about the lovely wooded area that they propose to uproot? Better use by inviting a Forest School to encourage young children to play there Have observed buzzards and woodpeckers in the trees of woodland – how can the woodland be adequately conserved given the proximity of dwellings to it The Oaks Road hedgerow provides shelter for wildlife and so need extensive tree and vegetation surveys prior to any destruction Loss of habitat
The Glen Oaks woodland is an historic semi – ancient wooded area and should be expanded and protected from development Protected species use this habitat Are there newts in the ponds on site? County Council Ecologists should reconsider their position given reliant on their own PH1 report, but rejected the applicants Ecology survey carried out at the wrong time of year (February) so not useful in determining application Woodland is an area of Priority Habitat as listed in Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Great Crested Newt survey probably inaccurate. At LE8 9GP there are 2 ponds that were rapidly populated by newts. Potential destruction of a large number of vulnerable bat species due to an absence of a bat survey.
Landscape: Visual impact not in keeping with the rest of the village Green areas around the village are being eroded at an alarming rate Will spoil the countryside Area is of significant beauty. Development risks disrupting this Will be destroying views across the fields for the villagers Development is on high land and will be visible from a distance, harming local landscape Concerned that it would be on the ridge line between Great Glen and Burton Overy Unofficial footpath enjoyed by local people Consider the Landscape Appraisal to be misleading Oaks wood can be seen from the highway local footpath C13 and local bridleway C25. Context of the wood is important therefore surrounding arable and grazing land should be retained. Will lose view of Oaks Wood Landscape Appraisal is misleading. Objector has created own photo evidence to support this view. Hilltop development would have a detrimental impact on the form and setting of the village given level of screening particularly from the east.
Highways: Need to facilitate pedestrian crossings in the village (Stretton Road) Will affect highway safety Will affect convenience of road users Putting in another roundabout would cause chaos Great Glen already too busy Roads over burdened at peak times Already dangerous speeding through the village Will create havoc on Oaks Road which is congested with parked cars and not wide enough for large vehicles Hazard at junction to Stretton Road Not enough parking in the village Proposed access point was rejected in 2014 due to narrowness of the country lane and absence of visibility splays Proposed roundabout will cause more mayhem Coverside Road is used by many as a through road to neighbouring villages. New development will increase this. 20mph limit on Coverside Road already has little effect
Will create a major road instead of a country lane New bus route is ridiculous as Oaks road already too narrow with the parking Whole of Great Glen will become a rat run as people seek alternative routes Lack of physical space for the roundabout Traffic hazardous along Stratton Road, Main Street and Oaks Road – with each having parked cars and business traffic Not even 2 parking spaces allocated per house Bus route can’t cope Building a roundabout will not decrease car numbers Residents will not walk from site to the suggested Grammar School. There are currently no zebra crossing points to aid pedestrians. The majority of Oaks Road has pavement on one side only. Gritting will be required on the bus route Fail to see how proposed traffic management system would sufficiently increase flow Is already dangerous for pedestrians in the village particularly as cars enter or emerge from the post office car park and parking bays opposite the shops on Stretton Road and co op – all close to the junction. No pavement on south side of Oaks Road therefore restricted visibility for cars leaving properties here now. Road is not wide enough for two vehicles to pass alongside parked cars, contrary to submitted documents. Particularly dangerous adjacent to St. Thomas’s Road Better to choose a site with access to the A6 Concerned that proposed bus route on Coverside Road would turn what is a quiet road into a rat run Will not be so safe to cycle Many motorists now use Gartree Road and cut through Great Glen to access Market Harborough and kibworth to avoid the A6 through Oadby Use of Coverside for a school bus is reasonable, but not as a regular bus route Para 2.5 of the Transport Assessment is wrong – Oaks Road is not wide enough Traffic soon to be made worse due to crematorium Blind right angled bend on Oaks Rd towards Great Glen immediately before the site Survey of road usage was undertaken when the 2 private schools were on summer holiday Concerns regarding construction traffic Local Roads are dangerous Single access point to the estate. What happens in event of a blockage and then emergency vehicle needs to access site? Traffic speed surveys indicate 20% already exceed the limit Traffic survey omits the junction of Church Road and London Road which is a major issue at times. Need a pedestrian crossing Extension to X3 bus route not required as few villagers live more than 10 minutes from a bus stop Bus route will disturb 2,4,6,8,10 and 12 Coverside Road Coverside unsuitable for a bus route as bends will be dangerous. Coverside not designed for a double deck bus Speed humps will not relieve the congestion Concerned that a single deck bus being proposed as current bus often almost full to capacity. Need zebra crossings for the safety of residents and children People will start to use Burton Overy as a rat run to get to A6 Travel Plan based on outdated guidance
Accessibility Study is flawed Traffic Forecasts not accurate Great Glen designed as a Rural Village and so parking already an issue for local businesses Impact of additional traffic on pedestrians, dog walkers, horse riders who walk up Oaks road to join the footpath at Burton Overy, especially as no footway Walking distances quoted are not in compliance with guidance (based in IHT Providing journeys on foot which has been superseded by Planning for Walking CIHT 2005) Sight lines Church Rd/A6 are poor and speeds on the A6 excessive. Queuing here is a problem that will be exacerbated. Improvement of the junction will involve significant land take. Traffic Assessment undertaken on the assumption that car parking is removed from Main street and Oaks Road TP proposes funding the bus diversion for 5 years only, after which it could be discontinued Site more than 8km from key amenities Travel plan suggests residents should not leave their homes to access shopping but instead seek a home delivery service in order to reduce the need to travel - outrageous. Has not taken into account the likely impact when the crematorium becomes operational in 2017 Collision analysis considers only the last 3 years rather than the more typical 5 years. Poor section on cycling – no references to standards etc Site layout not designed for future bus provision No thoughts or mitigation on how the residual impacts of development (vehicle trips) can be reduced Detailed comments regarding traffic figures not considered correct Unrealistically low traffic prediction Dysfunction of roundabout Concern regarding how footpaths C14 and C25 would be linked Concerns regarding accuracy of TA and other supporting documents
Social Infrastructure: Assist school to build more classrooms (not in school field) Work with doctors surgery to accommodate more patients Already difficult to get a doctors appointment Work to the Community Library should be started and finished prior to development Facilities are stretched to capacity School over full Village has one small co op only. Not large enough to cope Disappointed that Miller Homes have not offered to inject money into new facilities Do not want more social or affordable housing in Great Glen Village has already not been able to support the additional residents from the Stretton Road development – people recommended to access i.e. playgroup elsewhere Affordable homes are not for locals but housing associations. Not enough Infrastructure or services Playground already full – this will not improve it. Will be a lack of equipment Despite comments from the LCC Development Contribution Officer that Oadby Beauchamp school is within 3 miles walking distance from the site, this is incorrect as it should be measured from door to door. Houses within the site will be up to 300m in excess of this distance therefore a school bus will be required. No need for a Community Centre No Secondary schools in the village ADC’s traffic survey completed on behalf of Millers does not portray an accurate
analysis of the traffic using Oaks road on a daily basis. Number of local residents logged car journeys at different times of day noting delays currently of between 5 o 30 seconds per journey, and maximum number of times delayed 3.
Heritage: Land of historic significance (ridge and furrow). Concerned that will be destroyed Design of dwellings not in keeping with the historic nature of village
Residential amenity: Adverse effect due to noise, disturbance, overlooking, privacy, overshadowing Local people use this part of the countryside and this would take it away from them Height of new properties would be over powering from residents bedrooms along Coverside road
Miscellaneous: Would be over-bearing and out of character Things still not completed on existing site Will bring additional pollution in air quality Concerns with construction impact, including mud on Oaks Road Lack of public consultation. Contravenes advice in NPPF Will erode village life Vandalism has increased behind existing Miller development and in September arsonists attempted to set fire to crops in the field adjacent to both old development and the proposed new development Not in keeping with the village Post Brexit farmland should be maintained for food productivity Will the houses be built to be Code 7 compliant? Access photo submitted by applicant is wrong as shows access to sewage works There are now more crime and drug problems Has been an increase in anti social behaviour since the building of the Stretton Lane estate Misleading as site will not look like that when built. Shows too few houses Not enough information – more about the site than impacts on surrounding area Properties at the top of Coverside are exclusive individually designed. Impact of a housing proposal directly behind will negatively impact on selling price Slope of site is significant. Houses will directly look on to property and affect light in the back garden Shouldn’t be only one builder in the village
4.25 LCC County Councillor Dr Kevin Feltham
‘I am the county councillor representing the Gartree Division which includes the Glen Ward. I attended the fiesty public meeting in the Great Glen Village Hall on 19 October where well over 100 members of the local community voiced their concerns. I also attended the extraordinary parish council meeting in the Youth Centre held on 25th October, and where about 80 members of the public also attended.
This proposed development by Miller Homes is in the worst possible location for such a new estate in Great Glen. All traffic generated by the development, including construction traffic, will have to pass through the centre of the village. Oaks Road has cars parked along most of its length on one side or the other, with many houses not having off-road parking provision. This makes Oaks Road effectively into a one car width road for much of its length. The proposed mitigation of a mini roundabout at the junction of Oaks Road with Stretton Road is not going to alleviate congestion at peak times, rather it will exacerbate the problems.
The proposed location is greenfield land outside the limits of development, and has been graded as unsuitable (Red) for a wide range of assessments in the submitted version of the Great Glen Neighbourhood Plan with a specific instruction that it should not be considered for development within the new Local Plan period to 2031. In terms of the landscape the Neighbourhood Plan makes this comment, which I fully agree with: "A massive potential overdevelopment that is not needed in the Parish. An unnecessary extension into open space that will skew the built form of the village in an unacceptable way and allow growth in the least sustainable direction for Great Glen, given the current built form. Incongruous development that will dominate and ruin the skyline."
It is contrary to CS17 - as it does not protect the heritage of the ridge and furrow on part of the site, which would be lost. It is also contrary to para 6.59 that excludes Great Glen from further largescale development because of the existing build out and assimilation of that large GG/2 estate on Stretton Road, into the community infrastructure.
It is contrary to CS2 - outside limits of development and not in keeping with the scale and character of the settlement. Para 5.9 states: "Given the level of existing commitments additional housing development in Kibworth and Great Glen (other than small scale infill development) is not planned." Neither are large numbers of housing being proposed for Great Glen in the emerging new Local Plan as discussed by the HDC Local Plan Executive Advisory Panel.
It is contrary to CS11 - New development should be directed away from undeveloped areas of land which are important to the form and character of a settlement or locality.
Although there has been no formal comment yet by the Highways Authority, it is clear that the generation of several hundred additional vehicles on Oaks Road is going to cause major congestion. This is highly likely to lead to alternative routes being found to avoid congestion in the centre of the village, especially at peak times. Alternative routes along Coverside Road and Stretton Road, or even via Burton Overy and Carlton Curlieu to access the A6, are very likely if this development is granted permission. This level of traffic chaos is definitely not supported by local planning policies, nor should it be supported by planning officers or elected members of the planning committee.
I request that this application be refused citing a number of the policies in both the Core Strategy and Great Glen Neighbourhood Plan, several of which are summarised above.
4.26 Great Glen Parish Council ‘Great Glen Parish Council unanimously OBJECTS to the above application on the following grounds:- While accepting that the District does not have a 5 year housing land supply, the proposal does not accord with either District Council Core Strategy Policies or the National Planning Policy Framework with regard to sustainable development.
The site lies outside the existing limits of development in an exposed elevated position and does not reflect the scale and character of the village. This is a significant high point of the village itself. Environmentally the scale of the development on such an elevated site ignores the existing pattern of development and would be an encroachment into open countryside. The site was identified by the Parish Council in their draft Neighbourhood Plan as containing ridge and furrow and should be retained as “Other Important Open Space” and the Policy within the Neighbourhood Plan states that we should " resist development that adversely affects or damages the identified areas of well preserved ridge and furrow earthworks." Aerial views clearly show the very existence of this landscape feature and we believe that there has been insufficient attention paid by the developer to this issue.
We therefore consider that the proposal conflicts with both Core Strategy Policy CS2 and CS17 that it is not in keeping with the scale and character of the settlement or enhancing it. The proposal also conflicts with the NPPF para 14: sustainable development tests with reference to the economic, social and environmental effects of the development. The development would bring little or no economic gain to the village. Socially the development would further increase the strain on education and health facilities which are already at stretched at present. This has become
increasingly evident over the last few months or more as more housing has been released on the developer's current Stretton Glen development.
Traffic and Accessibility- The developer acknowledges that the site is remote from current public transport options and it is suggested that a re-routed bus service will be provided. This has not been confirmed by the bus company serving the village. The only realistic pedestrian route into the village would be down Oaks Road, on a rather narrow pathway which is over 800 metres away from village facilities and any return journey would be up a steep hill. Inevitably any new residents will use their cars to park in an already congested village centre or journey through the centre to other shops in Oadby etc. The Oaks Road itself is historically no more that a single track with passing places. Cars park on the road outside of some of the oldest, original cottages in the village which clearly have no off road parking facility. This was a traffic strategy implemented at the request of County Highways to alleviate speeding between Hillside and the Alms Houses. We therefore consider that, in transport terms, the site is unsustainable and that traffic surveys fail to show how the ebb and flow of traffic actually currently works on the Oaks Road. The very nature of embarking on this development would also significantly impair the flow of traffic within the centre of Great Glen and Oaks Road in particular as we have already experienced with the current development on the Stretton Road.
Community Facilities: No indication is given in the Planning Statement as to how the education and health facilities are going to be expanded. This is of crucial importance to existing and potential new residents of Great Glen and the question of affordable housing remains unresolved.
Housing Supply- Harborough District Council has yet again deferred its submission of a Local Plan to replace the Core Strategy and has yet to apportion the level of growth for Great Glen. One of the key priorities of the Neighbourhood Plan is ensuring the Parish remains sustainable in the long term by ensuring a balanced residential expansion. A report agreed by the District Council Executive in September 2016 set a residual target for Great Glen of 5 additional dwellings up to 2031, a figure which has already been exceeded through Planning Applications approved since the cut-off for calculating the residual housing target (March 2016). NO additional large scale residential developments are required because the Parish (at October 2016) has exceeded its identified housing target. Notwithstanding the District Council’s current 5 yr shortfall we believe that the best approach to future sustainable development at Great Glen is through the Local and Neighbourhood planning process. We would respectfully suggest that any planning applications be deferred pending the District Council's speedy resolution of the Local Plan.
Before any decision is made on this application the following issues need to be resolved in the public domain :- 1. The provision of the bus service via Coverside Road. A firm commitment, with written confirmation from the bus company that will be delivered. This may require further public consultation etc. for without it the site remains completely unsustainable in transport terms.
2. The improvements and expansion to education and health facilities needs to be confirmed by the developers and service providers and published for members of the public to scrutinise. Extensions have already been made to the primary school to cater for the increase in school numbers from the developer's previous build on Stretton Road. Are further extensions within the village a viable option?
3. Affordable housing remains unresolved. The provision of affordable housing at the level required by the District Council should be identified by the developer. The developer has indicated it will make a contribution to the proposed Community building. These matters must be resolved prior to any outline approval being given and not left to be resolved at the reserved matters stage when there is unlikely to be the same level of public involvement. There is significant local opposition to this proposed development, as you will be aware, and the Parish Council endorses this opposition’
5. Planning Policy Considerations
5.1 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 instructs that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan (DP), unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
5.2 The polices relevant to this application are set out below.
a) Development Plan
Harborough District Core Strategy (Adopted November 2011)
5.3 Policy CS2 sets out the delivery policy for the distribution of a minimum of 7,700 dwellings between 2006-2028, including:
• Rural Centres and Selected Rural Villages will receive at least 2,420 dwellings. [Officer comment – this figure is now significantly higher.]
• (a) Housing development will not be permitted outside Limits to Development (either before or following their review) unless at any point there is less than a five year supply of deliverable housing sites and the proposal is in keeping with the scale and character of the settlement concerned.
• (b) All housing developments should be of the highest design standards (in conformity with Policy CS11) and have a layout that makes the most efficient use of land and is compatible with the built form and character of the area in which it is situated.
5.4 The aspect of Policy CS2 which permits development outside Limits when there is less than a five year supply, but automatically rules it out when there is a five year supply, is judged to be out-of-date and superseded by Paragraph 14 of The Framework. The overarching guidance, advocated by both Policy CS2 and The Framework, is that new housing shall be provided in a sustainable manner and proposals shall be in keeping with the scale and character of the settlement concerned.
5.5 Policy CS17 specifically refers to the countryside, Rural Centres and Selected Rural Villages, stating that beyond Market Harborough, Lutterworth, Broughton Astley and Leicester PUA, development over the plan period will be focussed on Billesdon, Fleckney, Great Glen, Husbands Bosworth, Kibworth and Ullesthorpe.
5.6 Paragraph 6.59 of CS17 identifies Great Glen as a settlement with a notable commitment to the Strategy for Housing Distribution figure for the Rural Area, stemming from the Local Plan allocations. It states that “for this reason…Great Glen is excluded from the list of settlements in the above policy where additional housing is planned. However, this does not preclude limited infill development within currently defined Limits to Development”. It is considered however, that this policy subtext is not consistent with the aims and objectives of the Framework which seeks to deliver high levels of housing growth in sustainable locations. Proposals which accord with the development plan, or where the adverse impacts of a proposal do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal, should therefore be approved without delay.
5.7 The Council presently has a 5 Year Housing Supply deficit, the most up-to-date housing evidence confirms that more dwellings per annum are required than previously evidenced, and it is judged that restrictive para.6.59 of CS17 is ruled out-of-date by the Framework.
5.8 Each site must, therefore, be assessed on its own merits. Any harm stemming from this proposal must be identified and considered against the strong positive material consideration of approving new dwellings in sustainable locations, without delay.
The saved polices of the Harborough District 2001 Local Plan (HDLP)
5.9 The HDLP was adopted in 2001 with an original end date of 2006. A small number of policies have been “saved/retained” beyond that time. Of the limited number of policies that remain extant, Policy HS/8 (Limits to Development) should be noted.
5.10 However, blanket restriction policies such as HS/8 are presently not up-to-date and in accordance with the Framework. The current Limits to Development of those settlements in the District which possess Limits to Development were implemented in 2001, 14 years ago. The background work leading to the establishment of these Limits is even older and thus the Limits were established based on now out-of-date housing need evidence.
5.11 As such, Para.14 of the Framework is enacted with an overarching presumption in favour of sustainable development that takes precedence.
5.12 While Para.49 of the Framework states that “relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites”, it is not judged that Development Plan policies pertaining to housing are wholescale out-of-date; just that certain criteria/elements of such Development Plan policies are significantly out-of-date, for example, CS1 (a), CS2 (a) and certain aspects of CS17 (such as para.6.59). The strategic settlement hierarchy principles contained in CS1, CS2 and CS17 (which seek to direct new housing towards more sustainable locations) are judged to be up-to-date; in line with the Framework and the emerging strategic principles of the new Local Plan that is presently being prepared.
b) Material Planning Considerations
5.13 The National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework / NPPF)
Please see above for planning policy considerations that apply to all agenda items.
5.14 Supplementary Planning Guidance and Documents (SPG and SPD)
• SPG3: Residential Development; Major Housing sites • SPG4 Residential Development in the Countryside • SPG9 Landscape and New Development • SPG 10 Trees and Development • SPG11 Hedges and Development • SPG 13 Crime Prevention and Reduction • SPG 16 Requirements for the Provision of Land for Outdoor Playspace in New Residential Developments • SPG19 Development and Flood Risk SPD Planning Obligations
5.15 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
Sections 66 & 72 imposes a duty on Local Planning Authorities to pay special regard/attention to Listed Buildings/assets and Conservation Areas, including setting, when considering whether to grant planning permission for development. For Listed Buildings/assets, the Local Planning Authority shall “have special regard to the desirability
of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses” (Section 66) and for Conservation Areas “special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area” (Section 72). Core Strategy Policy CS11 also applies in this respect.
5.16 Great Glen Village Design Statement (September 2005)
Great Glen Parish Council produced a Village Design Statement aimed at safeguarding for future generations the distinctive character and rich heritage of the village and surrounding area and providing a guide to development to ensure that it is sympathetic and would enhance the existing the existing environment.
5.17 Rural Centres Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Capacity Study (July 2014; The Landscape Partnership)
The Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Capacity Study was commissioned by Harborough District Council in March 2014. The six settlements included in the study are; Billesdon, Fleckney, Great Glen, Husbands Bosworth, Kibworth and Ullesthorpe. The study provides a detailed analysis of the landscape sensitivity and capacity of land around the edges of these settlements, with a view to assessing the potential suitability to accommodate future development with a focus on residential use. The Study will form part of the evidence base for the preparation of the new Local Plan for Harborough District and its findings will be considered alongside other relevant factors to assess the suitability of settlements to accommodate future development.
5.18 Great Glen Neighbourhood Plan
Following amendments to the submitted Great Glen Neighbourhood Plan public consultation is expected to run from March 8th 2017.
5.19 Cumulative Development Traffic Impact Study – Fleckney, Great Glen and the Kibworths (Jacobs, January 2017)
5.20 Planning Obligations SPD (Jan 17)
c) Emerging Local Plan Evidence Base
5.21 The following emerging local plan evidence base is relevant to this application
Strategic Housing Market Assessment
Housing and Economic Needs Assessment
Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment
It is noted that the site (albeit extended further to the north than the application site currently under consideration) is identified in the SHLAA as being potentially suitable; available and potentially achievable for residential development (Ref: A/GG/HSG/13 ).
Settlement Profile (May 2015)
Rural Centres Landscape Character Assessment (2014)
Local Plan Options Consultation Paper Four Options for the distribution of housing development within the new Local Plan are proposed. The amount of new dwellings for Great Glen ranges from 0-64 within the Options. A final Option has yet to be decided.
d) Other Relevant Documents
5.22 The following documents should be noted
The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, S.I. No.948 (as amended) Circular 11/95 Annex A - Use of Conditions in Planning Permission ODPM Circular 06/2005 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System) Leicestershire Planning Obligations Policy Leicestershire County Council Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3) Leicestershire County Council Highways Authority 6Cs Design Guide
e) Other Relevant Information
5.23 Reason for Committee Decision
This application is to be determined by Planning Committee because of the size and nature of the proposed development (it is a “Major Application” Development Type).
5.24 Appeal submitted
The applicant has submitted an appeal against non-determination of the application.
The application was delayed past the statutory timescale as the Highways Authority were concerned that there were potential cumulative impacts of the development in the local area, and wished to await the results of the A6 Study. The agent was made aware of this. The study has now been received.
Despite requiring final comments from LCC Highways and the results of Trial Trenching with any proposed mitigation, this application is now before Members in order to establish the Councils position on the application prior to the preparation and submission of the Council’s Appeal Statement. It is likely that both of these technical issues could be dealt with through suitable mitigation measures negotiated through the Planning Authority. To this end, paragraph 203 of the NPPF says that:
‘Local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations. Planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through a planning condition’.
6. Assessment
a) Principle of Development
6.1 The application site is a greenfield site in open countryside which lies outside the defined Limits to Development of Great Glen (as established by the Harborough District 2001 Local Plan, Policy HS/8). Within Policy CS2 and CS17 of the Core Strategy, Great Glen is classified as a ‘Rural Centre’ due to the level of service provision within the village.
6.2 Policy CS2 (a) states that housing development will not be permitted outside the Limits to Development (either before or following their review) unless at any point there is less than a five year supply of deliverable housing sites and the proposal is in keeping with the scale and character of the settlement concerned.
6.3 As outlined above in however, the Council is not able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable sites for housing and therefore its policies for housing supply, including CS2 and CS17, cannot be considered entirely up-to-date ( Framework Para.49). Policy CS2(a) does permit housing development outside of Limits to Development where the Council’s supply of deliverable sites for housing has fallen below five years, and the proposal is in keeping with the scale and character of the settlement concerned. The Local Planning Authority acknowledges that even accounting for the Market Harborough Strategic Development Area, there does not appear to be a sufficient number of sites on brownfield land to accommodate the need for new housing. The current site is judged to be within satisfactory distance of a sustainable Rural Centre, which possesses a good range of shops, services and transport links. The proposal makes an efficient use of land and would deliver up to 170 new dwellings, including affordable housing provision.
6.4 The Court of Appeal gave judgment on 17th March 2016 in the combined appeals of Suffolk Coastal District Council v. Hopkins Homes Limited and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and Richborough Estates Partnership LLP v. Cheshire East Borough Council and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWCA Civ. 168 addressing the meaning and effect of Paragraph 49 of the NPPF. Among other things, it held that ‘[relevant] policies for the supply of housing’, meant ‘relevant policies that affect the supply of housing’ and so including:
‘[…]policies whose effect is to influence the supply of housing land by restricting the locations where new housing may be developed—including, for example, policies for the Green Belt, policies for the general protection of the countryside, policies for conserving the landscape of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks, policies for the conservation of wildlife or cultural heritage, and various policies whose purpose is to protect the local environment in one way or another by preventing or limiting development’ (Lindblom LJ, para [33]).
6.5 Such restrictive policies may have the effect of constraining the supply of housing land, in which event if an LPA is unable to demonstrate the requisite five-year-supply then relevant policies are liable to be regarded as not up to date for the purposes of The Framework Paragraph 49 and so out of date for the purposes of The Framework Paragraph 14 (presumption in favour of sustainable development).
6.6 However, that is not an end to the matter, because if a policy is caught by Paragraph 49, that does not render it meaningless; it is still part of the Development Plan as the Judgment makes clear at paragraph 42:
“The NPPF is a policy document. It ought not to be treated as if it had the force of statute. It does not, and could not, displace the statutory “presumption in favour of the development plan”, as Lord Hope described it in City of Edinburgh Council v Secretary of State for Scotland [1997] 1 W.L.R. 1447 at 1450B-G). Under section 70(2) of the 1990 Act and section 38(6) of the 2004 Act, government policy in the NPPF is a material consideration external to the development plan. Policies in the NPPF, including those relating to the “presumption in favour of sustainable development”, do not modify the statutory framework for the making of decisions on applications for planning permission. They operate within that framework…It is for the decision-maker to decide what weight should be given to NPPF policies in so far as they are relevant to the proposal”.
6.7 Importantly the Court said that the weight to be given to ‘out of date’ development plan policy will vary according to the circumstances …
“including, for example, the extent to which relevant policies fall short of providing for the five-year supply of housing land, the action being taken by the local planning authority to address it, or the particular purpose of a restrictive policy”.
6.8 The Court emphasised that ‘weight’ is always a matter of planning judgment for the decision- maker.
6.9 Limits to Development were adopted 15 years ago, in the context of different national planning policy and based on now out-of-date housing need evidence. Policy HS/8, as well as aspects of Development Plan policies which reference HS/8 (e.g. CS2a and elements of CS17), represent restrictive blanket policies on new housing development outside Limits; taken literally, such policies limit new housing development to within the 2001 defined Limits to Development of Great Glen. Policy HS/8 is inconsistent with relevant policies on sustainable housing development contained in the Framework. Moreover, the Council resolved (December 2012) that the Core Strategy was not compliant with The Framework on several grounds and that it should prepare a new Local Plan to replace it. The emerging Local Plan puts forward a criteria-based policy in substitution of defined limits altogether.
6.10 Having full regard to the recent Judgement, Officers consider limited weight should be given to Local Plan Policy HS/8, CS2a and elements of CS17.
6.11 In circumstances where relevant policies are out-of-date, Paragraph 14 of the Framework is engaged and advises that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.
6.12 In making any such assessment of adverse impacts and benefits, appropriate weight should be attached to all aspects of Development Plan policies which are not out-of-date and which remain in accordance with the Framework.
6.13 At this moment in time, therefore, the principle of residential development in this location accords with Core Strategy Policy CS2(a). As per the Framework Paragraph 14 and in the light of recent appeal decisions, the proposal is judged to be acceptable in principle.
6.14 Resisting the proposal on the sole ground of it being beyond defined limits to development is not judged to be sustainable at appeal, nor a desirable approach if the Local Planning Authority is to seek to deliver the current and future housing needs of the District.
6.15 The emerging Development Plan is also a material consideration. This has reached the stage of assessing selected options. The Council’s Executive on 9th May 2016 agreed to narrow down the original 9 Options proposed within the Local Plan Options Consultation (Sept/Oct 2015) to 4 Options for further assessment. The Pre-Submission Local Plan is due for publication in July 2017.
6.16 Under the 4 Options being assessed, Great Glen is allocated a range of between 0 and 64 dwellings as at 30th March 2016. This is in addition to committed and completed 368 dwellings within the settlement from April 2011 to September 2016. This will be updated before the Pre-Submission Plan is published. It is considered that the emerging Local Plan housing requirement can be given some weight at this stage.
6.17 Policies HS/8 and CS17(a) are out of date as the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing. The proposal is therefore to be considered in line with the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
6.18 The NPPF states that the three dimensions of sustainable development (economic, social and environmental) should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent (paragraph 8).
6.19 The conformity of the proposed development to the criteria for sustainability is considered throughout the remainder of this report.
b) Accessibility
Pedestrian/Cycle Accessibility
6.20 The Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation provides guidance on acceptable walking distances and suggests that a preferred maximum walking distance of 2km is applicable for commuting or school trips. ‘Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot (Institution of Highways and Transportation, 200) describes acceptable walking distances for pedestrians without mobility impairment. They suggest that for commuters and school pupils, up to 500 metres is the desirable walking distance, up to 1,000 metres is an acceptable walking distance, and up to 2,000 metres is the preferred maximum walking distance.
6.21 The Transport Assessment submitted with the application shows that the education, health and retail facilities in Great Glen are located within the desired walking distance range. This includes:
St Cuthbert’s Church of England Primary School, Stoneygate Nursery and Primary School off London Road. The Post Office, library, Co-op food store and County Pharmacy amongst other retail units. The Great Glen GP Surgery on Main Street and The Glen Dental Clinic on Stretton Road.
6.22 Figure 5 below, shows the pedestrian catchment area based on a 2,000 metres walking distance from the centre of the site, via footways along the local highway network and traffic- free public footpaths.
6.23 It is noted that the Leicester Grammar School and Leicester Junior School off London Road are just beyond the pedestrian catchment area.
Figure 5: 2 Kilometre Walking Distance from Site
Figure 6: Walking Distances measured by time
6.24 There is currently a footway on the northern side of Oaks Road extending from the Oaks Road/Coverside Road junction to Stretton Road, and on both sides of Coverside Road, Hilltop Avenue and Stonehill Drive on the desire line to and from the St Cuthbert’s Primary School.
6.25 The application proposals include the creation of a new 2 metre wide footway on the northern side of Oaks Road, to connect to the existing footway further west, and 2 metres
wide footways on both sides of the site access carriageway, into the site and along the internal road.
6.26 There is also a public footpath linking the development site directly to Coverside Road at the north-western corner (footpath C13). Part of the proposals include the enhancement of this footpath, including lighting and surfacing on the stretch between the site boundary and Coverside Road, subject to agreement with LCC.
6.27 It is noted that the draft Neighbourhood Plan includes an aspiration for a “roadside footpath” to link the public bridleway C14 to the east of the site with bridleway C25 to the west of the site (see Figure 7 below). The Transport Assessment submitted with the application indicates that there is insufficient space to provide this along the roadside, without extensive loss of the hedgerow. The Indicative Masterplan has therefore included a route through the development site, on the inside of the hedgerow, details of which would be considered at Reserved Matters stage in the event of an approval..
Figure 7: Footpath/Bridleway Potential Link
6.28 Away from the main road, it is intended that footways and shared space environments would be provided in accordance with Manual for Streets.
Bus Accessibility
6.29 The 6Cs Design Guide states that in rural areas ‘the walking distance (to bus stops) should not be more than 800m’, and the Transport Assessment indicates that the application site is located outside this parameter.
6.30 The closest bus stops are located on Church Road (approximately 895m from the proposed site access) and Main Street (approximately 920m from the proposed site access).
6.31 Both of these stops are served by the X3 running between Leicester and Market Harborough every 30 minutes Monday to Saturday, and hourly on Sundays.
6.32 The TA also indicates that there are flag and pole stops on London Road served by the Stagecoach Service X7, which runs between Milton Keynes and Leicester via Northampton, Brixworth and Market Harborough hourly Monday – Saturday, and every two hours on Sunday.
6.33 A subsidised Centrebus Service 45 used to run in a loop arrangement through Great Glen via Coverside Road at an hourly frequency. However, funding was withdrawn and the service ceased.
6.34 Given that the existing bus stops and bus services are beyond the recommended 800 metres walking distance, the applicant discussed different solutions with LCC Highways. These primarily included the potential to promote existing bus provision travel welcome packs and bus passes (similar to the Miller development off Stretton Road), or a contribution towards the diversion of the Service X3 to route through Great Glen in a one-way circular route via Coverside Road. New bus stops could then also be provided on Coverside Road to reduce walking distances from the proposed development site. Given the potential planning gain for existing households beyond the 800m walking distance of bus stops, this was considered the preferred option.
6.35 As part of the development proposals therefore it is proposed to provide a contribution for five years, to fund the diversion of Service X3 in a one-way loop arrangement via Coverside Road, to run at a 30-minute frequency from Monday to Saturday and hourly on Sunday.
6.36 It is also proposed to provide funding for two new bus stops on Coverside Road in the vicinity of the Oaks Road junction, to reduce the walking distances from the proposed dwellings.
Accessibility Conclusion 6.37 The site, together with the improvements relating to footpaths and bus routing has been shown to be well connected to local services and facilities.
c) Site Access
6.38 Access is a matter for consideration as part of this application, and would be taken via a new T-junction on Oaks Road as illustrated in Figure 8 below.
6.39 The access would include a 5.5 metres wide carriageway and 6 metres kerb radii. In addition, Oaks Road would be widened to 5.5 metres along the stretch between the Coverside Road junction to the site access junction.
6.40 As previously indicated, it is proposed that a new 2 metre wide footway would also be provided on the northern side of Oaks Road, to connect to the existing footway further west.
Figure 8: Access Junction Layout and Highway Works
6.41 It is also proposed to relocate the existing 30mph speed limit further east, to include the access junction, and to provide a new gateway feature. As shown in figure 8 above, this would include ‘SLOW’ markings, dragons teeth, roundels, and white lining.
d) Highway Impact
Proposed Trip Generation
6.42 The TA submitted with the application indicates trip rates to be as shown in Figure 9 below.
Figure 9: Trip Rates
Trip Distribution
6.43 The TA indicates that the distribution pattern of the traffic generated by the proposed development suggests 4.2% will route to and from the east along Oaks Road, and the remaining 95.8% will route to and from the west through the off-site study area junctions.
6.44 It indicates that much of the development traffic (72.5%) will use the A6 to travel eastbound and westbound to and from the proposed development. However, not all of this will route via Station Road and the Archers Roundabout.
6.45 Some traffic travelling to and from the west will route to and from the A6 via the Glen Gorse Roundabout and Church Street to the west, and some traffic travelling to and from the east will route via the slip roads and London Road to the east (although the slip roads are for entering and exiting the eastbound carriageway only, so the westbound returning traffic will need to route via Archers Roundabout).
6.46 The route taken will ultimately depend on the driver’s choice, and the perception of time/distance savings
Speed Survey
6.47 A speed survey was undertaken on Oaks Road at the existing eastern field gateway, which is east of the location of the proposed development site access junction.
6.48 Following this survey, the TA concludes that vehicles travel well below the national speed limit in both directions in this location.
Accident Analysis
6.49 In relation to traffic accidents within the vicinity of the site the applicants Highways Consultants obtained personal injury accident data from Crashmap (www.crashmap.co.uk) for the most recent consecutive three year period (2013-2015). This showed that has shown that there was :
one serious accident was recorded on the bend to the east of the development site. This involved one vehicle and occurred on 8 November 2013 one accident was recorded at the London Road/Station Road T-junction. This was a “slight” accident involving two vehicles and was recorded on 30 March 2015.
Highway Impact
6.50 As outlined above, the site is accessed from Oaks Road which runs between Stretton Road in Great Glen to the west, and Gaulby Road in Kings Norton to the east.
6.51 Beyond the current extent of the village, and along the site frontage, Oaks Road is narrower by approximately 5 metres, with grass verges. It is unlit.
6.52 Within the village, Oaks Road is subject to a 30mph speed limit, but this changes to the national speed limit at the south-west corner of the application site and is therefore currently the national speed limit along the site frontage.
6.53 There are currently no gateway features at the speed limit change, which include signs only. There is however a vehicle activated sign just west of the Oaks Road/Coverside Road T- junction. There is also a raised table on Oaks Road in the vicinity of the Stretton Road junction.
6.54 There are no lane markings or parking restrictions on Oaks Road, and so there is resultant on-street parking along the road. However the Transport Assessment indicates that Oaks Road is of sufficient width that parked vehicles do not prevent the passage of traffic, and that in places drivers would be expected to stop and give way to oncoming traffic where a vehicle is parked on their side.
6.55 Whilst the TA indicates that there is no evidence to suggest that this on-street parking causes a highway safety issue, and that it can act as a speed reduction feature along Oaks Road, as vehicles are forced to slow down to give-way, local residents have expressed significant concerns.
6.56 To the west of the site, Oaks Road joins Stretton Road (which forms the main north-south route through Great Glen) at a priority-controlled T-junction. There is traffic calming with speed cushions and central islands along this road. It is also subject to a 30mph speed limit, which changes to a 40mph speed limit just north of the Stretton Road/Devana Way T- junction. There is also a vehicle activated sign for southbound vehicles on Stretton Road just south of the Devana Way junction.
6.57 With these existing features in mind, the applicant’s Highway Consultant agreed the study area junctions for assessment with County Highways. In accordance with guidance, traffic flows associated with committed developments have been included within the 2021 assessment year traffic. County Highways agreed that the only development to be included should be the Stretton Glen development to the north of the application site.
6.58 The assessed junctions were:
Oaks Road/site access junction Oaks Road/Church Road/Stretton Road/Main Street junction London Road/Main Street T-junctions London Road/Station Road T-junction A6 Archers Roundabout
6.59 In respect of the above, the TA made the following conclusions.
Oaks Road/site access junction
6.60 The proposed junction layout is forecast to operate well below the 85% ratio of flow to capacity (RFC), and is therefore suitable to accommodate the forecast traffic flows.
Oaks Road/Church Road/Stretton Road/Main Street junction
6.61 The TA has shown that the arm with the least spare capacity, Stretton Road, would operate at 90% of capacity in the morning peak hour with 2021 background traffic, and at 95% with the development in place. The queue would increase slightly, whilst the delay would increase significantly. The addition of the proposed development traffic, both on Stretton Road itself, and on Oaks Road passing Stretton Road would exacerbate the existing capacity issues, and the queuing and delay would worsen. Mitigation measures are therefore required as part of the proposed development.
6.62 It is proposed therefore to alter the Oaks Road/Stretton Road part of the junction, to provide a mini-roundabout. The Oaks Road/Church Road/Main Street junction would remain as existing (see Figure 11).
6.63 The TA indicates that these highway works can be achieved within the highway boundary, and the junction arrangement can accommodate the swept path of a double decker bus as shown in Figure 12 below.
Figure 10: Existing junction layout
Figure 11: Proposed Junction Layout
Figure 12: Swept Path Analysis
London Road/Main Street T-junctions
6.64 The junction is forecast to operate well below 85% RFC, with minimal queuing and delay. The existing junction layout therefore has the capacity to accommodate the additional traffic as a result of the proposed development, and no mitigation measures are required
London Road/Station Road T-junction
6.65 The TA has indicated that the junction is forecast to operate well below 85% RFC, with minimal queuing and delay. The movement with the least spare capacity is the left turn from Station Road, which would operate at 72% RFC in 2021 without the development, and 76% RFC in 2021 with the development in place. The TA says therefore that the existing junction can accommodate the additional traffic as a result of the proposed development, and no mitigation measures are required.
A6 Archers Roundabout
6.66 The TA shows that the junction is forecast to operate well below the 85% RFC, with minimal queuing and delay. The arm with the least spare capacity is Station Road (S) which would operate at 57% of capacity in 2021 without the development, and at 58% of capacity in 2021 with the development in place. The addition of the proposed development traffic therefore has limited effect on the operation of the junction. Therefore, the existing junction can accommodate the additional trips resulting from the development and no mitigation measures are required.
Cumulative Development Traffic Impact Study for Fleckney, Great Glen and the Kibworths ( ‘Impact Study’)
6.67 The Highways Authority needed to wait for the results of the Cumulative Development Traffic Impact Study for Fleckney, Great Glen and the Kibworths (hereafter referred to as the
‘Impact Study’), before providing any comments on the application. The Impact Study was published on the 30th January 2017 and is available on the Council’s website.
6.68 The Impact Study looked at the cumulative development traffic impact at links and junctions within the study area
6.69 The study looked at 10 sites in the study area which are either permissions, applications or pre-application sites (a total of 1319 houses, 11,368sqm of commercial space, 882sqm office and 294sqm retail).
6.70 The Impact Study presents the concept highways improvements to accommodate the impact of the cumulative development flows and revised capacity assessment reports. The sites considered and the junctions assessed are shown on the two plans below, taken from the Impact Study. The application site is G3 on Figure 13 below.
Figure 13: LCC Highway Impact Study- application sites
Figure 14: LCC Highway Impact Study – Study Junctions
6.71 The Study concludes that concept highway improvements are required to accommodate traffic flows for the A6 Leicester Road/Wistow Road roundabout, and the New Road/Harborough Road junction (both at Kibworth) and other improvements at Kibworth.
6.72 The final formal comments of the Highways Authority (HA) are awaited.
e) Landscape Character / Capacity
6.73 Section 7 of the NPPF provides detailed policy regarding good design, of particular note are paragraphs 58, 60, 61 and 64. Section 11 of the Framework also addresses ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’, and states at paragraph 109 that:
“The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: • Protecting and enhancing valued landscape …”
6.74 Core Strategy Policy CS11 and CS17(c) also advises that
“rural development will be located and designed in a way that is sensitive to its landscape setting, retaining and, where possible, enhancing the distinctive qualities of the landscape character area in which it is situated”.
6.75 Policy CS8 addresses ‘protecting and enhancing green infrastructure’
6.76 The applicants have submitted a Landscape and Visual Appraisal for the proposed development, which has been considered by the Council’s Landscape Consultant TLP to offer specialist advice on this matter.
6.77 At a National level, Natural England has divided the country into 159 character areas. Great Glen and the site are identified as being located at the boundary of two National Character Areas (NCA), NCA 93 High Leicestershire, and NCA 94 Leicestershire Vales.
6.78 At a local level the Council have carried out a Landscape Character Assessment specific to the District. The original assessment was carried out in 2007 and identified the five main Landscape Character Area’s (LCA) within the district.
6.79 The site is located within the High Leicestershire LCA which was identified in the 2007 HDC Landscape Character Assessment as having an overall Low to Medium capacity for development.
6.80 However, the HDC Landscape Character Assessment indicates that the western edge of High Leicestershire could accommodate development around settlements including Great Glen provided it is contiguous and connected to the existing urban area, as long as the natural and visual envelopes of the settlements are maintained and do not exert built influence over the rest of rural High Leicestershire. It was also considered important that future development does not have an adverse impact on topography which is a defining feature of the landscape character of the area.
6.81 The Landscape Character Assessment was updated through the 2014 Landscape Capacity Study for Great Glen, which includes a more detailed assessment of the High Leicestershire LCA, and the settlement fringe of Great Glen.
6.82 The 2014 HDC Landscape Capacity Study for Great Glen identifies the Site as falling within Parcel 11 which is assessed overall as having Medium capacity in relative terms for development based on a range of criteria.
6.83 The factors that are less suited to development within this parcel are the location to the upper edge of the valley slopes and the openness to public and private views.
6.84 Factors that are more suited to development within parcel 11 are the relationship with the existing built edge of Great Glen and the measure of enclosure provided by the Glen Oaks shelterbelt from the wider rural countryside to the east.
6.85 The Landscape Capacity Study says that:
‘Parcels 3, 9 and 11 have medium capacity for development with some areas relating well to existing development most notably Parcel 9. Development on the higher ground including Parcels 8 and 11 would be visually prominent particularly if they break the skyline’;
6.86 It is relevant to note that the application under consideration does not include the higher ground as noted above.
Figure 15: Landscape Capacity Study Parcels
6.87 The Capacity Study indicates that Parcel 11 is comprised of three fields, with the two northern and larger fields currently under arable production, and a smaller southern field grazed by cattle. This southern pasture field also contains ridge and furrow.
6.88 It also indicates that there are public views from Oaks Road both to the south of the Parcel and to the north-east, and open views over both the two northern fields from the right of way leading from Coverside Road across the northernmost field. There are also open views from this footpath across the valley of the River Sence, including those to higher ground on the opposite plateau.
6.89 The Landscape Capacity Study also indicates that there are private views from the rear of all properties on Coverside Road which are orientated to the east, the properties have clipped hedgerow boundaries and intermittent trees with views towards Glen Oaks.
6.90 The Capacity Study says that Parcel 11 is considered to have Medium Capacity to accommodate development.
‘The two fields located between Coverside Road and Glen Oaks appear to be relatively more suitable since they are more closely associated with existing development. They also are more visually contained against the backdrop of the existing shelter belt on the high ground. In cross valley views from west of the village this part of the Parcel is also visually contained by the presence of the existing housing and with a backstop of mature trees. The addition of new development here is unlikely to result in a significant visual impact from these cross valley views. The northern field is more exposed, development within the north-east corner would be seen in the views from Burton Overy to the east, this would affect coalescence. The visibility of
additional properties on Oaks Road seen from the south should also be considered, since this would also break the skyline in the cross valley views over the relatively steep Burton Brook valley’.
6.91 The capacity study also sets out a number of mitigation measures for Land Parcel 11 which should be considered in relation to future development.
Retention of existing landscape features and vegetation: The boundary hedgerows and internal linear hedgerows should be retained within the development layout and also form natural compartments for development. Although outside the Parcel, there should not be any compromise to the integrity of the Glen Oaks woodland belt. Important views to be retained: There are some elevated panoramic views across the valleys to the east, south and west. Care should be taken to retain these views from this Parcel. The effect on reciprocal views back to the Parcel should also be considered. Retention of existing routes through the site: The existing public footpath running diagonally through the site and into the open countryside should be unaffected. Ground modelling There is unlikely to be a need for substantive ground modelling as the site is gently sloping on the plateau top. Additional planting Additional tree belts could be incorporated within any scheme following the established precedent of Glen Oaks. This could include additional tree planting belts to the southern boundary of the site and should development be proposed for the whole Parcel also to the north-east section of the Parcel. Maximum building heights Building heights should not exceed two storeys in this elevated location. However, a number of the properties to the south of Coverside Road are bungalows. Consideration of properties closest to Oaks Road could be appropriate to reduce the visual effect of built form in this elevated location. Development layout: Due to lack of any obvious access point from Coverside Road it is more practical to provide access from Oaks Road to the south. This could be through a tree belt that provides a soft buffer to the southern boundary. The layout should also respect the amenity to the properties on Coverside Road, with potential for either generous back- to-back gardens or inclusion of an additional footpath/green corridor running along the boundary to connect with the bridleway to the south-west across Oaks Road. Equally properties should not be positioned too close to overhanging or shading branches from Glen Oaks. Building materials: There are no vernacular styles in close proximity to the south side. However further down Oaks Road to the west there are a number of more traditional Victorian/Edwardian villa houses that could provide a cue. It is less likely that more contemporary architecture will be appropriate in this elevated location. Open space provision and green infrastructure: An area of open space/shelter belt planting should be provided to the southern boundary at the site access. This should incorporate tree planting close to the road and open space, to provide a sense of entrance and to ensure the properties were not too shaded on this aspect. An additional corridor of green space could be provided along the western boundary providing a new pedestrian access point/right- of-way.
Applicant’s Landscape and Visual Appraisal
6.92 The application was accompanied by a Landscape and Visual Appraisal together with accompanying appendices.
6.93 The Appraisal indicates that the existing Visual Baseline or envelope of the site is limited to a localised area, by existing dwellings to the west of the site and vegetation in their gardens, and by the site’s boundary vegetation, particularly the woodland of Glen Oaks.
6.94 The key public visual receptors to the potential impacts of the site are assessed to be users of footpath (C13) which crosses the field to the north of the site. Users of local road network and Bridleways C25 and C14 also have the potential to be affected by the proposals but less significantly due to the distances involved.
6.95 The residential properties on Coverside Road immediately to the west of the site are assessed as having the potential to be affected by the proposed development, whereas those properties at Stretton Glen are assessed to be less likely to be affected particularly as proposed development would not be immediately adjacent to these properties. All properties identified as having views of the site are in relatively close proximity to the site.
6.96 The LVA indicates that:
The baseline landscape assessment of the site has identified that the local landscape is a rural village settled within the valley landform of the River Sence with rising land to west and east. By virtue of the site’s location, on the edge of the village, on rising ground on the flanks of a ridge, there are some opportunities for long-distance views of the site, particularly from the higher ground on the opposite side of the valley, rising towards the west in the vicinity of Leicester Grammar School. These private views (there are no public rights of way on this higher ground) are possible from the School, from brief sections of the access road to the School and from Stretton Hall, over 1km from the site, but not from the access road to Stretton Hall, due to belts of trees lying parallel to the road.
Visual effects on public rights of way (PROW)
Footpath C13
6.97 Footpath C13 crosses the field to the north of the site, between the north-east corner of existing housing at Coverside Road/Spinney View (coinciding with the north-west corner of the site), to the middle of this field’s northern boundary (a distance of 270m) before continuing north-east towards Oaks Road (a distance of 0.5km). The LVA says that users of the southern end of this footpath have views into the site over the low northern boundary hedge, and also have views of the current settlement edge formed by the backs of houses on Coverside Road (Photo 5) and the new houses at Stretton Glen (Devana Way).
Figures 16, 17, and 18 : Taken from footpath C13
6.98 The Council’s Landscape Consultant made the following observations with regards to the impact from this viewpoint (C13)
‘The LVIA states that in views from Footpath C13 immediate views would not greatly alter but that views of new houses would be seen set behind the retained hedgerow. TLP disagrees with the LVA that the magnitude change would be Medium from this route looking south as the housing would be clearly visible above the hedgerow at Year 1. The presence of existing housing to the west and south-west is part of the baseline context but is not considered to reduce the magnitude of change from the new housing looking south. TLP consider the significance of effects would be Major to Major/Moderate Adverse along the footpath route looking south rather than Moderate Adverse as stated in the LVA. With a substantive extension of Glen Oaks woodland (as indicated at para 5.2.2) the significance of effect from footpath C13 would reduce potentially to Moderate or less with the woodland belt established’.
Bridleway C14
6.99 To the south-east of the site is the western end of Bridleway C14, which heads eastwards towards Burton Overy (See Figure 7 above). The initial 150m of the western end of this bridleway lies on the north side of the hedge.
6.100 The LVA says views westwards towards Oaks Road are open and that the field to the east of the site is partially screened by the roadside hedgerow to Oaks Road, and that it is the trees forming Glen Oaks that are the most prominent feature in views from this bridleway and thus screen any views of the site itself. The sensitivity of users of this bridleway have been assessed in the LVA as ‘Medium to Low’ given their glimpsed views of the site and relative distance from it. Eastwards of the initial 150m section, Bridleway C14 crosses to the southern side of the hedge, which in combination with the fall in the land towards the Burton Brook, screens views westward towards the site.
Figure 19: from Bridleway C14
6.101 The Councils Landscape consultant verifies that in his opinion in the winter months the presence of additional houses would be glimpsed through Glen Oaks, leading to a Low adverse effect and a Negligible effect in the summer when the shelter belt is in leaf.
Bridleway C25
6.102 The LVA identifies the northern end of Bridleway 25 as lying beyond the south-west corner of the site heading south-westwards into the Burton Brook valley and the grounds around Great Glen Hall.
6.103 From the northern 100m section of this bridleway (Figure 20 below), the frontage hedgerow, forming the southern site boundary along Oaks Road, is visible against the backdrop of Glen Oaks (Figure 21). As with Bridleway C14, the sensitivity of users of the northern end of this bridleway, has been assessed as ‘Medium to Low’. As the bridleway falls into the valley of the Burton Brook, views of the site are not possible.
Figure 20: From Bridleway C25 Figure 21: From Bridleway C25
6.104 TLP however consider that the sensitivity of receptors would be High. While the degree of visibility may be variable along the route it is the magnitude change that would vary rather than the sensitivity.
Views from Oaks Road
6.105 The LVA says that motorists using Oaks Road along the southern boundary of the site have views of the rising ground of the site from a 200m length of this road between the eastern- most properties on Oaks Road and the woodland screen created by Glen Oaks. Views from this section of Oaks Road are seen against the backdrop of existing houses on Coverside Road (Figure 22). These views are partially screened by the roadside hedge, though at gaps created by gates, views become open, but fleeting, into the site. The sensitivity of motorists along this 200m section of Oaks Road has been assessed as ‘Low’ in the LVA as their views are transient, oblique and over a relatively short distance.
Figure 22: View Looking Westwards along the Southern Boundary
6.106 The LVA says that where Oaks Road rises onto higher ground to the north-east of the site, and beyond the screen of Glen Oaks, views to the west across the field north of the site are possible, with the tops of new properties at Stretton Glen just visible (Figure 23).
Figure 23: Looking from further east along Oaks Road
6.107 The LVA considers that there are no views of the site from the roads within the settlement of Great Glen due to the intervening properties, except where Oaks Road forms the frontage of the site.
6.108 Similarly, there are no views of the site from within Burton Overy due to its location in the valley bottom.
6.109 Glimpsed views of the site are possible from limited sections of London Road (Figure 24) and from Mayns Lane (Figures 25 and 26) to the south of the site on the opposite side of the Burton Brook valley. From both of these roads, the LVA says that the location of the site is drawn to users’ attention by the presence of Glen Oaks, and in both cases the site is seen at a distance of about 1km and in the context of existing properties in Great Glen.
Figure 24: From London Road on southern side of Burton Brook
Figure 25: From Mayns Lane
Figure 26: From in front of Ashlea on Mayns Lane
6.110 The Councils landscape consultant indicates that whilst the sensitivity of motorists on Oaks Road is considered to be Low, reference is made in the LVA to the presence of the existing houses forming a backdrop. While this is the case travelling from east to west in journeys from west to east the backdrop is formed by the more natural appearance of Glen Oaks woodland. TLP consider views in this direction to be of Medium sensitivity which will also reflect that for cyclists and pedestrians along the route.
6.111 Views from further north-east of the Site (Figure 23) have views across the Sence Valley and include existing development on both the eastern and western slopes. TLP also considers that the receptors would be of Medium sensitivity on a rural route with countryside views.
6.112 In views from Mayns Lane (Figures 25 and 26) there are also Partial views. However, in these locations the Site is seen against the backdrop of the houses on Overside Road. TLP considers users of London Road are likely to be Low to Medium sensitivity with users of Mayns Road to be of Medium sensitivity.
6.113 With regards to the views from south and south east of London Road, TLP consider that whilst the LVA refers to ‘glimpsed’ views from sections of London Road (Figure 24), in TLP’s opinion these would equate to the relatively higher category of ‘partial’ views. The existing houses on Oaks Road can be clearly seen across the Burton Brook valley and equally additional housing would be visible across the valley.
Views from Private Residences
6.114 The LVA indicates that private views from residential properties towards the site are possible from those properties backing onto the western edge of the site along Coverside Road and at Stretton Glen (see reverse views in Figure 22 and Figure 16 above)
6.115 The LVA says that properties on Coverside Road have open to partial views into the site due to their proximity to it, though these views vary with the amount of vegetation and fencing within their rear gardens. The sensitivity of residents to the type of development proposed has been assessed as ‘High to Medium’ depending on the degree of intervening screening; those with more open views are able to see across the site to the backdrop of Glen Oaks, but longer distance views are curtailed by this wood and the ridgeline. The properties at the eastern end of the Stretton Glen development face onto an area that will be laid out as public open space.
6.123 Although the the LVA considers the sensitivity of residential locations to be High to Medium depending on the degree of intervening screening, TLP consider the sensitivity of all of these properties to be High, but rather magnitude of change will vary depending on the level of screening.
6.116 The Council appointed The Landscape Partnership (TLP) in their initial review of the LVA concluded the following.
Landscape character effects.
6.117 The site is located within the High Leicestershire LCA which is identified in the 2007 HDC Landscape Character Assessment as overall as having a Low to Medium capacity for development. However, the HDC LCA indicates that the western edge of High Leicestershire could accommodate development around settlements including Great Glen provided it is contiguous and connected to the existing urban area, as long as the natural and visual envelopes of the settlements are maintained and do not exert built influence over the rest of rural High Leicestershire. It is also important that future development does not have an adverse impact on topography which is a defining feature of the landscape character of the area.
6.118 The 2014 HDC Landscape Capacity Study for Great Glen identifies the Site as falling within Parcel 11 which is assessed overall as having Medium capacity in relative terms for development based on a range of criteria. The factors that are less suited to development
are the location to the upper edge of the valley slopes and the openness to public and private views. Factors that are more suited are the relationship with the existing built edge of Great Glen and the measure of enclosure provided by the Glen Oaks shelterbelt from the wider rural countryside to the east.
6.119 TLP consider that the sensitivity of the Site itself is Medium. In terms of the effects on landscape character TLP consider that the extent of important effects at Major/Moderate and above on landscape character overall are restricted to a relatively short distance of the site, within c.300m and that this would be to the north and south with built form (Coverside Road) and vegetation (Glen Oaks) restricting significant landscape effects to the west and east respectively. The effect on the Burton Brook valley to the south is dependent on the details of the scheme and landscape treatment to the southern edge.
6.120 The most notable effects on landscape features would be the loss of the agricultural fields and an area of ridge and furrow pasture on the field to the south of the Site. The ability to practically retain a meaningful part of this feature as indicated on the Illustrative Layout is questioned. There would be a loss of roadside hedgerow to Oaks Road but this could be replaced with a new feature set behind the sight lines from a new junction.
6.121 TLP considers that there would be a Major to Major/Moderate effect on the Site itself, although this would be typical of any similar development on a greenfield site.
6.122 Policy CS17 is referenced in the LVA. However, the effect and compliance with these criteria are not specifically evaluated by the applicant in the LVA. In TLP’s opinion the Indicative Layout and DAS provide a starting point but need to be fully tested against a more detailed scheme and a Landscape Mitigation plan to ensure a scheme adequately meets the criteria in Policy CS17.
Visual effects
6.123 In visual terms the LVA has evaluated the effects on some of the local receptors which are largely located within 200m of the site. TLP consider there would be greater levels of effect than identified in the LVA particularly from public Footpath C13 and Bridleway C25 where they would be Major and Major/Moderate adverse rather than Moderate. Other locations are not assessed in the LVA e.g. across the valley of the Burton Brook to the south, although these would be up to Moderate adverse.
6.124 TLP have identified some relatively greater effects at Major and Major/Moderate from properties closest to the site on Coverside Road where there would be higher sensitivity and magnitude of change. However, based on the Illustrative layout and with a suitable hard and soft landscape scheme the adverse effects while significant are unlikely to result in an unacceptable effect on the visual component of residential amenity.
Comments on the illustrative Layout
6.125 The Illustrative Layout (02016-08RevD) provides the basis on which the effects have been assessed.
6.126 TLP assesses the following features of the layout as positive and, in part, reflect some of the guidance in the 2014 Landscape Capacity Study for Parcel 11.
a. Retention and suitable offset from Glen Oaks woodland b. Placing open space to higher ground to north-east c. Restricting development to the southern part of Parcel 11
d. Incorporation of a new planted buffer to the north (LVA para 5.2.2) – however this is not shown on the Illustrative Layout e. Internal green corridor along the swale linking with the existing pond and new attenuation pond to the south-west.
6.127 TLP did also request further clarification and enhancement in relation to a number of issues, as well as the submission of further information including methodology and cross section drawings.
TLP Initial conclusions
6.128 Despite differences in judgement regarding magnitudes of change, and the need for further clarifications and information, the TLP Report concluded that
‘On balance in landscape and visual terms the site has the potential for an appropriately designed residential development on the edge of the village subject to the provision of suitable additional materials and clarifications as listed above’.
In response to the above, the applicants provided a formal response via the Landscape and Visual Note prepared by Pegasus Group (who did not prepare the original LVA). The Note indicates that it:
‘has considered both documents in order to review the clarifications, potential information gaps, and differences in professional opinion with the aim of determining how essential this information is in the context of placing the landscape and visual effects in the planning balance. In essence, the aim is to clarify whether the commentary within the TLP review raises new material considerations, or whether professional opinions are broadly aligned but that the TLP review is aiming to build a more complete evidence base to support the decision making process’.
The conclusion reached by the Pegasus Note was that :
‘The additional material suggested by the TLP review would be useful for completeness, but will not add to the fundamental understanding of landscape and visual effects which are already presented in the HAD LVA;
• Whilst there are some areas of professional judgement/opinion where HDA and TLP differ, ultimately they are unlikely to alter the overarching point that such effects are highly localised and will not influence the wider landscape (or visual receptors in the wider landscape);
• Having reviewed both documents, it is clear that this site is, in landscape and visual terms, a good site (not least of all because of its relationship with the existing residential area of Great Glen; its general visual containment in the wider landscape; the lack of any prevalent landscape or amenity related planning designations; and its position between the village and a mature and substantial belt of woodland vegetation) for the right scale, form and character of residential development;
• It is generally agreed that, notwithstanding identified differences in LVA/LVIA process summarised above, the right scale, form and character of residential development has been proposed;
• It is a site with an outline proposal that is fully capable of being mitigated in landscape and visual terms; and
• Crucially, as set out in paragraph 3.14 of the summary in the TLP review, it notes,
“On balance TLP consider that in landscape and visual terms the site has the potential for an appropriately designed residential development on the edge of the village subject to the provision of suitable additional materials and clarifications as listed above”.
Whilst additional information and clarification may be informative to a degree, it is unlikely to change the overall judgement on likely effects set out in the HAD LVA, and on this basis it is considered that the proposed development, in principle and as illustrated, must be acceptable in landscape and visual terms’.
Following the TLP response to this Note (outlined above) Pegasus PG followed up with a letter to the applicant, that was shared with the Council and our consultant TLP. This outlined areas of agreement namely:
‘It is agreed that there are likely to be major effects on the site. However this is primarily by virtue of land use change and this point is in common to many similar site/development scenarios. Matters reserved for detailed design and mitigation (architectural and urban design as well as landscape) all have an important role to play in this respect regarding the eventual character and appearance of the proposed development.
It is agreed that the site is well contained to the east and west of the site. Regarding the northern and southern boundaries, it is agreed these are less well contained however it is clear from the illustrative layout (Phil Jones Associates ref. 02016-08D) that both these boundaries could be enhanced with the additional and supplementary planting for both visual containment and setting purposes. Likewise the retained hedgerow corridor in the centre of the site could also be enhanced to play a role in the final landscape design and mitigation strategy.
It is agreed that even localised impacts can still be important and as such any landscape and visual mitigation and design strategy would not ignore this fact.
It is agreed that matters of provision of open space and landscape mitigation should be raised at outline stage, and to an extent these have been considered by HAD.
It then went on to suggest a means to move forward:
‘Moving Forward
A number of suggested requirements for reserved matters are set out in para.3.4 on page 4 of the TLP note, including:
a) A series of long sections from across the valley and Burton Brook; b) Closer sections to demonstrate threshold treatments etc. e.e. adjacent to existing houses on Coverside Road; c) A landscape Strategy to include land uses in the public open spaces; retention of existing landscape features; more detailed tree and shrub planting; mitigation planting; western boundary treatment; footpath access and routes; detailed planting schemes; play provision; and landscape maintenance’.
The letter then commits that at Reserved Matters stage the applicants would provide the following:
1. A comprehensive Landscape Masterplan including levels; 2. Long landscape sections including levels 3. Detailed landscape sections across the ste boundaries 4. Detailed tree and shrub planting design 5. Detailed public open space and play area plans; and 6. A landscape maintenance and management plan
TLP therefore concluded that they were happy with this approach, confirming that in the event of an approval, a Reserved Matters scheme could address the points they had made.
6.129 It is considered by the case officer therefore that the evidence demonstrates that the site is relatively contained within the local landscape, that appropriate mitigation can be secured through Reserved Matters.
f) Layout, Scale and Design
6.130 Core Strategy Policy CS2(b) states, in respect of new housing development, that the critical considerations are: (1) the need for the highest design standard (in conformity with Policy CS11), (2) a layout that makes the most efficient use of land and that is compatible with the built form and character of its surroundings, and (3) an appropriate mix of housing types.
6.131 Although the design (form/layout, mass, scale, proportions, style, materials) is not a matter which is currently for consideration and will be tested at Reserved Matters stage in the event of an outline approval, an Illustrative layout has been provided together with supporting information contained within the Design and Access Statement. These, together demonstrate how the site could be developed, taking into account the constraints of the site.
6.132 It should be noted it does not preclude alternative layouts as part of a subsequent reserved matters or detailed planning application, providing the key underlying principles established in the DAS and within the parameters indicated below.
Glen Oaks woodland to be protected by at least a 10 meter buffer between the development and the woodland Consideration should be given to planting the northern end of the site as a species- rich meadow; There should be a 5 meter buffer between hedgerows and the development; The lighting scheme associated with the development should be designed to minimise light spill onto existing vegetation; The Sustainable Urban Drainage feature should include ecological enhancements and to be designed to hold some water at all times. It should also be planted with semi natural native vegetation;
Figure 27: Illustrative Masterplan
6.133 The applicant shows through the Illustrative masterplan (Figure 27) and Illustrative Layout (Figure 4) and supporting information that:
A residential development comprising up to 170 dwellings can be accommodated on the application site. The proposed dwellings would be accommodated on a developable area of 4.47ha of the site, the remaining 4.01 ha being comprised of POS, SuD’s The site would be accessed from one point on Oaks Road. Two principal areas of POS located in the north east corner and the southwest corners of the site. There would be four linear spaces along the northern, southern, and eastern boundaries as well as a swale running in a north-south direction. Maximum height of 2.5 storeys, although general building heights would be limited to 2 storeys. Visually sensitive areas would be limited to two storey dwellings Would back onto the existing housing along the western boundary to create a secure back-to-back scenario Align development with the linear character of the historic Ridge and Furrow Create a sympathetic structure to the sloping topography of the site Promote enclosed public spaces Allow for a fragmented frontage to the open countryside to create a positive transition between the proposal and the open character Maximise views of existing and new landscape features, including the field pond, swale and proposed attenuation pond
Create a visual connection between the swale and the north east open space, including view of the children’s play area to give a sense of a destination to terminate the proposed green corridor Create the opportunity for a permeable movement network Ensure retention of existing trees and hedgerows Retain the existing ecological habitats Provide for a new access from the south via Oaks Road, connecting with a primary ‘loop’ road structure, maximising access for future residents and visitors Maintain historic Ridge and Furrow in areas of open space to ensure the development maintains a links with the wider area’s historic landscape character Retain existing vegetation where possible, including, woodland, individual trees and hedgerows Provide significant areas of new planting along the western and southern site boundaries, increasing the privacy of existing dwellings along Coverside Road Any landscaping of the POS along either the northern or eastern boundaries should be sympathetic to the countryside character of the adjacent fields and valleys The retention of existing hedgerows and trees, except where required to be removed to facilitate access A minimum 10m. non development buffer between Glen Oaks and the proposed built development Surface water attenuation in the south west corner of the site
Housing Mix and Density
6.134 At this stage the housing mix is currently unknown, but is anticipated to include a mix of dwelling types and tenures in accordance with the Housing and Economic Needs Assessment.
6.135 In accordance with Policy CS3, 40% of the development is proposed to be offered as affordable housing. This equates to 68 dwellings. This requirement has been included within the suggested S106 obligations outlined in Appendix A.
Public Open Space and Green Infrastructure
6.136 Landscaping is reserved and so detailed specifics are not required at this stage. However the illustrative Masterplan and supporting information shows that open space provision has been integrated throughout the proposed development.
6.137 The illustrative Masterplan shows that
Much of the open space would be retained along the northern, eastern and southern boundaries would be accessible open space, including a new children’s play area. Enhanced pedestrian access between the existing settlement boundary and Glen Oaks. Some retention of the existing ridge and furrow in the south west corner Retention of existing vegetation where possible, including, woodland, individual trees and hedgerows Provision of new planting along the western and southern site boundaries
6.138 The overall amount of Public Open Space has been designed in accordance with Policy CS8, and suggested commuted sums relating to any shortfalls or off site provision is identified within Appendix A.
6.139 The illustrative masterplan therefore provides a good indication of how the development could proceed on site.
Residential Amenity
6.140 Core Principle 4 of the National Planning Framework seeks to ensure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings and this is also reflected in CS Policy CS11.
6.141 As layout, scale and external appearance of the proposed development is a Reserved Matter, it is not possible to provide a detailed assessment on whether or not the amenity of existing residential areas/properties located adjacent, to or within close proximity, will be affected in terms of in terms of loss of light (overshadowing), Loss of privacy (overlooking) or over dominant or overbearing structure
6.142 The Case Officer is satisfied however that the provision within the illustrative masterplan for dwellings along the western boundary to be back to back with existing properties on Coverside Road will protect the amenity of those residents in relation to the above.
6.143 Whilst the Case Officer has sympathy with residents who have expressed concerns regarding loss of view, the planning system does not exist to protect private views. The fact that a development would be visible from existing dwellings is not an indication of harm. The illustrative masterplan shows that the development can be accommodated within the Council’s design guidance policy.
6.144 During construction there would be some adverse impacts on residential amenity. However, a planning condition requiring a Construction Environmental Management Plan to be approved and implemented could be imposed on any grant of planning consent to limit the disturbance and inconvenience that may arise when building works are undertaken. In addition to planning controls, the Environmental Protection Act provides a variety of safeguards in respect of noise, air and light pollution
g) Heritage Issues
6.145 An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment was submitted with the application. This provides a description of heritage assets potentially affected by the development of the site.
6.146 It has established that there are no designated heritage assets on the proposed development site and there would be no impact upon any designated heritage assets within the wider area.
6.147 The Assessment indicates however that the site does contain one non-designated heritage asset which is the unrecorded ridge and furrow, which is considered to be of local importance.
6.148 With regards to the Ridge and Furrow, the applicants Archaeological Assessment says that:
‘The heritage significance of ridge and furrow, and other open field cultivation evidence, within the eastern Midlands has been assessed by David Hall on behalf of English Heritage (Hall, 2001). The objectives of the report were ‘to select priority townships of nationally important examples suitable for preservation’. After a pilot survey based on Northamptonshire the methodology was extended in the report to the counties of Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Leicestershire, Warwickshire, Oxfordshire, Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire, although it covered some of the counties only partially. The current study site was included within Hall’s study area. The report identified a total of 43 priority townships
which represented the best survival, where preservation should be a priority. The township of Great Glen was not included in this list’.
6.149 The Assessment also considered the potential for ‘as yet to be discovered’ archaeological assets within the site and has established that the study site has a low potential for significant remains dating to the Prehistoric period, low to moderate potential for significant remains dating to the Roman period and a low to negligible potential for significant remains dating to the Saxon, Medieval, Post-Medieval and Modern periods.
6.150 LCC Archaeology assessed the submitted supporting documents, and requested a Geophysical survey be submitted, following which County requested that trial trenching be undertaken on site prior to determination of this application.
6.151 At the time of writing, trenching was due to take place in March 2017.
6.152 As noted above, in the absence of the trenching results, the County Archaeologist has advised refusal on the grounds of a lack of information to inform the planning decision.
Noting that the application will be going forward to appeal, by which time the results of the trenching will be known, in officer opinion it would be unreasonable to consider a refusal on this basis alone. Issues regarding archaeology would be considered as part of the appeal. In any event the matter could be probably dealt with by a negative planning condition.
Although consulted, Historic England has not made any comment regarding the heritage of the site, the HDC Conservation Officer has raised no objection.
h) Ecology
6.153 A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Breeding Bird Survey, Bat Activity Survey, and Great Crested Newt Survey were submitted in support of the application. This Appraisal outlines the results from both the Desktop Survey and Ph1 Habitat Survey. The results and conclusions are summarised in brief below.
Figure 28: Preliminary Ecological Appraisal of Site
Statutory Sites
6.154 The report concluded that there are no international/european designated sites within 10km or national statutory sites for nature conservation within 2km of the site, the closest being Kilby-Foxton Canal SSSI located approximately 2.5km south west of the Site. Given the distances the proposed works on the application site are not expected to impact on them. This is because the zone of influence of the likely impacts during construction and operation is likely to be limited to the curtilage of the Site or very close to the Site.
Non-Statutory Sites
6.155 In total there are 55 non-statutory nature conservation sites within 2km of the Site, a combination of Local Wildlife Sites, Potential Local Wildlife Sites and Parish level nature conservation sites. As with the statutory sites, due to the intervening habitats (a combination of open fields and residential properties and their associated gardens), and nature of the development, despite the relative close proximity of some of the non-statutory sites outside the Site boundary, the proposed works are not expected to impact them.
6.156 Glen Oaks, however lies directly adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site and is identified as a Parish level nature conservation site. The Appraisal therefore makes the following recommendations:
The Glen Oaks woodland should remain directly unaffected by the development
To reduce the likelihood of impact from the development, a suggested buffer of approximately 10m from the woodland edge is taken into consideration with the Site masterplan Consideration of the potential increase in recreational use should be made through a combination of potential methods including new signage, management and local consultation
Habitats
6.157 The Appraisal assessed the ecological importance of the habitats present on site against their presence in the United Kingdom (UK) and Local Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) and on Section 41 of the NERC Act and their ability to support protected or notable species.
6.158 Those habitats which meet any of these criteria and are considered likely to be impacted by the proposals were highlighted as notable considerations.
6.159 The Appraisal indicates that there are six main habitat types within the Site, plus the woodland immediately adjacent to it.
6.160 It is noted however that the Appraisal indicates that the vast majority of the Site is agricultural land which is considered, on its own, to have low ecological value.
6.161 The broad-leaved semi-natural woodland, although currently unmanaged, has high ecological value and is a UK BAP Priority Habitat. It is also a non-statutory site for nature conservation and recommendations for its protection and potential enhancement have been recommended.
6.162 In officer opinion, the parameters for development require a 10m buffer zone between the development and Glen Oaks, and in the event of a planning approval, a long term Management Plan would be submitted and implemented in relation to the woodland.
6.163 The Appraisal says that the species-poor hedgerows which surround the Site are well established and are worthy of retention. It has therefore recommended that the boundary hedgerows should be retained where practicable, utilising any existing gaps in the hedgerows for future access, with any other smaller gaps in filled with whips of native hedgerow species, if possible of local provenance.
6.164 A majority of the hedgerows are to be retained as part of the development.
Protected and Notable Species
Amphibians
6.165 The Ecology Appraisal indicates that the site is currently suitable for great crested newts because there are both potential breeding and terrestrial habitats present on the site.
6.166 The pond within the Site has been identified as having average suitability for great crested newts through the Habitat Sustainability Index (HSI) assessment, with Pond 2 also having average suitability, with the third pond with the Site having low potential.
6.167 In light of this, the Appraisal recommended a presence/likely absence great crested newt survey of the three ponds on the Site should be undertaken during optimal times. If great crested newt are found within the ponds, further surveys may be required.
6.168 A ‘Presence/Likely Absence of Great Crested Newts Survey’ was submitted with the planning application.
6.169 This concludes that:
‘Three smooth newts and numerous tadpoles were identified in Pond 1 during the field surveys, but no great crested newts were identified. Due to the lack of great crested newt and amphibian activity it is considered highly unlikely that great crested newts are present within the Site or the surrounding area’.
Figure 29: Pond Location
Badgers
6.170 Records of badgers were returned within 2km of the Site. A confidential Badger Survey has also been submitted with the application and duly considered by the County Ecologist.
6.171 The Ecology Appraisal recommends as a precaution that best practice in relation to badgers be followed during the construction process.
Bats
6.172 The Ecology Appraisal indicates that there are large numbers of trees within the Glen Oaks woodland that have high potential to support roosting bats. However, given that the proposals would have no direct impact on the woodland no further recommendations are made in relation to roosting bats.
6.173 The Site itself has however been identified as having a combination of very good foraging habitat (woodland edge), and low quality habitat (agricultural fields) meaning an overall
assessment of the Site in terms of foraging potential is that it has moderate potential for foraging bats.
6.174 The Appraisal says that although the woodland will not be directly affected by the development, the presence of new development immediately adjacent to a very good roosting and foraging habitat may have a detrimental effect on the local bat population. It has therefore recommended that additional bat activity surveys be undertaken across the Site, focusing on the Glen Oaks woodland and the routes bats take across the site. This was duly submitted and considered by the County Ecology Officer.
Birds
6.175 The Ecology Appraisal concluded that the application site has a combination of habitats for both farmland and woodland bird species and that a wide variety of records were returned from the desk study such that notable bird species may be present on the Site. It recommended therefore that a breeding bird survey should be undertaken.
6.176 This survey has been submitted to, and considered by, the County Ecologist. The survey itself is very detailed but concludes that
‘Though the development of the Site may impact upon and potentially contribute to the localised loss or displacement of relatively small numbers of birds of notable species, through a considered mitigation plan and a combination of new tree and hedgerow planting, reedbed planting and SUDS, and bird boxes the Site has the potential to enhance bird diversity and abundance’.
Invertebrates
6.177 The Appraisal found that the vast majority of the Site is unsuitable for anything other than common invertebrate species. Therefore no further recommendations have been made.
Other Protected or Notable Species
6.178 The Appraisal says that the species poor hedgerows do not offer the diversity of species required to support hazel dormice and are too heavily managed and isolated from historical populations for them to be present. No recommendations have therefore been made.
6.179 The openness of the field and connections to the wider countryside mean that it is probable that brown hare use the Site in some capacity, but given the level of disturbance from adjacent developments and the barriers presented by development and roads, The Appraisal consider this usage is likely to be low. No recommendations have therefore been made.
6.180 It is considered likely that hedgehogs will use the Site in some capacity and therefore good practice measures should be implemented during the construction process.
Reptiles
6.181 The Appraisal says that a large proportion of the Site has low potential for reptiles due to its highly disturbed nature. However, the field margins with the mixture of grassland, tall ruderals and scrub in close proximity to the hedgerows have the potential to support reptiles.
6.182 Despite the presence of some suitable habitat, records of reptiles are sparse and the Site is considered to be isolated from good quality reptile habitat either by development, roads or extensive areas of agricultural land. It is considered therefore that reptiles are unlikely to be present on the Site. Therefore no further recommendations have been made.
Ecology Appraisal recommendations in terms of Mitigation and Enhancement
6.183 The Appraisal says that the current indicative masterplan has the potential to increase the ecological value of the Site from its current status of low ecological value to at least moderate value through the following Site enhancements:
New hedgerow planting along the western and southern boundaries and the filling of gaps in the existing defunct hedgerows The construction of a swale wetland and Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) could create permanent and temporary wetland habitats promoting diverse flora and encouraging invertebrates and birds Public Open Space (POS) would be created and include new tree, shrub and wildflower planting
County Ecologist Response
6.184The County Ecologist has advised that the surveys submitted in support of the application were completed at the sub-optimal time of year (during February), which is not acceptable. However a Phase 1 survey of the Parish was completed by the County surveyor in 2015. ‘This also indicates that the grassland is of low botanical value (although this assessment was completed from public Rights of Way, not following a full assessment of the site’). So despite the timing of the surveys, the County Ecologist is satisfied that the site is very unlikely to meet the Local Wildlife Site criteria and no further habitat surveys are required.
Conclusions
6.185 The additional surveys recommended by the Appraisal have been carried out and submitted with the application. The recommendations relating to the protection and enhancement of Glen Oaks has also been incorporated within the illustrative masterplan. It is also proposed to request a comprehensive Woodland Management scheme to be submitted at Reserved Matters stage in the event that this application is approved. A proposed Condition to this effect has therefore been included. 6.186 Whilst no objections have been raised by the County Ecologist therefore, subject to Conditions the proposal is judged to accord with Policy CS8 and CS11 in terms of ecological considerations
i) Arboriculture
6.187 A tree survey was undertaken by Mott MacDonald on 1st March 2016 to assess the quality and value of the principal trees within or adjacent to the footprint of the proposed development .
6.188 The most important arboricultural feature the survey identified is the large, early mature Category A woodland which runs along the eastern border of the site (Glen Oaks). The Survey found that the woodland exhibits good arboricultural value with several trees within the woodland being notable for their size, form and prominence.
6.189 The Survey showed that the northern and southern perimeter of the site is bordered by boundary hedges, and a hedge runs east-west across the site, dividing the site into two distinct sections.
6.190 The central area of the site contains one small category C tree (low retention value) and a tree group. The remainder of the central area comprises of open agricultural land and presents no arboricultural constraints to development.
6.191 The Survey indicated that a majority of individual trees outside the site are located within private gardens bordering the west of the site (Coverside Road).
6.192 It will be necessary to pay close attention to the final layout to ensure that the Glen Oaks Woodland is protected from the encroachment of development. This will be achieved by ensuring the maintenance of a 10m buffer between built development and the woodland, as illustrated on the illustrative layout.
6.193 In addition appropriate conditions should be applied in the event of an approval to protect the roots of trees and hedges on site during the construction process.
6.194 The Leicestershire County Council Forestry Team Leader has raised no objections to the proposals, and the HDC Neighbourhood and Green Spaces Officer has suggested the need for a long term Management Plan for Glen Oaks. This has been included within the suggested list of conditions in the event of a planning approval.
j) Flooding and Drainage
6.195 A Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (FRA) prepared by bsp Consulting has accompanied this planning application.
6.196 Policy CS10 (Addressing Flood Risk) states that development will be directed towards areas at the lowest probability of flooding within the District, with priority given to land within Flood Zone 1. The Environment Agency flood map shows that the site is located within Flood Zone 1, and so is considered suitable for residential development
6.197 The topographical survey of the site indicates that there is a fall in level from the north east to the south west of the site.
Fluvial Flood Risk
6.198 The FRA indicates that the closest local watercourse is the Burton Brook which lies to the south of the Site and the River Sence is the closest main river to the site. These lie outside of the area at risk of flooding in an extreme flood and have therefore been discounted within the FRA as a significant source of flood risk to the site.
Proposed Surface Water Drainage
6.199 As the low point of the site is in the south-western corner, surface water flooding over the site naturally flows to this corner, and then continues to the south-west across the highway to agricultural land beyond.
6.200 The surface water strategy therefore includes the provision of an infiltration basin within the south west corner, together with a swale that would run north-south through the site, parallel to the western boundary.
6.201 The drainage outfall for the site is anticipated to be an existing surface water sewer that flows from east to west from the junction of Cherry Grove and Oaks Road.
Proposed Foul Water Drainage
6.202 The FRA says that Severn Trent Water have confirmed that a foul sewer is located at the junction of Coverside Road and that the topography of the site is such that the foul water sewer is confirmed as an appropriate outfall for the development.
6.203 Confirmation has been received from STWL that this acceptable however a scheme of sewer treatment works will be required at the Great Glen sewer treatment works.
Conclusion
6.204 The Leicestershire County Council Lead Local Flood Authority has considered the matter in full, and in the light of additional detailed comments provided by a local objector. Following the submission of additional information, they have raised no objection subject to conditions which have been included with Appendix B.
6.205 The proposals including the FRA and additional supporting information have been considered by Leicestershire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority and, subject to planning conditions, no objections have been raised to the development. Therefore, the proposals are judged to accord with Policy CS10 in respect of flooding and drainage considerations
k) Agricultural land
6.206 The applicant commissioned Kernon Countryside Consultants to investigate the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) and soil resources to assess whether the site falls within ‘best and most versatile (Grade 3a or above).
6.207 The report concludes that a detailed Agricultural Land Classification survey undertaken in 1993 determined that the Site comprises approximately 6.6 ha Subgrade 3b (nearly 80% of the Site) due to a soil wetness limitation. A small area (1.7 ha / around 20% of the Site) is classified as Subgrade 3a, defined as best and most versatile agricultural land (BMV).
6.208 Due to the quantum of BMV agricultural land, the proposed development is not considered to be significant development of agricultural land in planning policy terms.
6.209 The landowning farm business will lose 8.3 ha of agricultural land, which represents a small proportion of the overall holding. There will be no significant effects on agricultural businesses.
6.210 In conclusion, there will be no significant effects upon local agriculture as a result of the proposed development.
6.211 The development would not therefore result in the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land and a such the proposed development would not be contrary to The Framework Para 112.
l) Other Matters
Great Glen Neighbourhood Plan
6.212 The Regulation 16 consultation for the Great Glen Neighbourhood Plan took place between 24 August 2016 and 5 October 2016. However following a representation from Historic England the Neighbourhood Plan was revised and resubmitted. Consultation on this revision is proposed for 8th March 2017.
The Great Glen Neighbourhood Plan Pre Submission Document, that was the subject of consultation in 2016, has therefore been revised following a representation by Historic England.
6.213 There have been a number of objections to the application under consideration on the basis of policies contained within the Pre Submission Neighbourhood Plan, and the status that this plan holds. This includes the citing of planning appeals where objectors consider the case to be similar to that now under consideration.
6.214 It is notable that some of the objections related to the fact that the Pre Submission Document has allocated a ‘Reserve’ site for development, and that this should therefore be the preferred location for new housing. However as noted above, during the course of the application, and in light of comments by Heritage England the re-submission of the Neighbourhood Plan document (November 2016) has removed the Reserve site identified above.
6.215 Concern has been expressed by residents that the application is pre-empting the outcome of the Neighbourhood Plan. Whilst Officers acknowledge the work that the community has undertaken so far, the Plan has not been ‘made’, nor has it been through Examination, and thus limited weight can be accorded to it at this stage.
6.216 Notwithstanding the above, and noting that the Neighbourhood Plan recognises the need for additional housing within Harborough and the need to take a portion of the requirement, I have below considered the application against key policies within the resubmitted document.
6.217 Policy GG2 relating to Housing Provision says, in summary, that Great Glen has exceeded its housing requirement over the Plan period. Therefore:
‘ until such a time as there is an increase in housing need across the Harborough District or unless there is a failure to deliver the existing commitments, further housing development in the Parish will be restricted to Windfall development in line with Policy GG3’.
6.218 Policy GG3 indicates that small infill and redevelopment sites would be supported subject to a range specific criteria.
6.219 The above policies however are affected by the current lack of a five year housing land supply as discussed in detail in above.
6.220 The NP seeks a mixture of house types and sizes within Policy GG4. This is a matter for Reserved Matters, however Members will note that I have included a ‘Note’ to the effect that in the event of a planning approval, the developers should be mindful of the NP.
6.221 Policy GG5 relates specifically to the requirement for 40% affordable homes which is in line with the adopted Core Strategy. The proposal incorporates this requirement.
6.222 The Village Design Statement 2005 has been incorporated within the Pre Submission Document, which says that the community is opposed to three story houses where the height is overbearing to the very nature of the original Village designs. Five bedroom and larger houses should be kept to a minimum and a mix of quality two and three bedroom houses and bungalows are encouraged.
6.223 There is also a Policy GG6 relating to ‘Design Quality’.
6.224 Issues relating to specific design features would be a matter for consideration at the Reserved Matters stage, and is not for consideration at this stage aside from the development parameters.
6.225 The document identifies the protection of specific local green spaces, however it is notable that the application site is not included within the list, the site is however included as ‘Other Important Open Space’ to be considered under Policy GG13. This relates to sites that have been identified as being of local significance for their environmental features.
6.226 The policy says that:
‘Development proposals that affect any of these sites will be expected to seek to protect or enhance their identified features’.
6.227 In addition Policy GG14 states that :
‘Development proposals that adversely affect or damage the identified areas of well preserved ridge and furrow earthworks identified as surviving ridge and furrow will be resisted
6.228 The loss of some of the ridge and furrow has been discussed above. It is noted that there have been no objections from Heritage England nor the District Conservation Officer, although final comments are awaited from the County Archaeologist following the trial trenching.
6.229 Policy GG18 includes aspirations for a footpath/cycleway along Oaks road to the south of the application site. Proposals have included widening the footpath across the southern boundary of the site.
6.230 Policy GG23 relating to traffic management aligns well with the requirements of the Core Strategy to which the proposals also need to comply.
6.231 The Pre Submission Document also includes a policy (GG24) relating to the specifics of developer contributions. This includes for the community centre which has been included within the suggested planning obligations in Appendix A.
Recent Housing Approvals
6.232 Reference has been made by the local community and the parish council with regards to the recent approvals of residential development within Great Glen.
6.233 The Case Officer acknowledges these recent housing commitments for the village; however as previously referred to within this report, the Council can not demonstrate a five year land supply and in the absence of up to date housing polices, decision makers are required to determine the proposal in line with the presumption of sustainable development (Para 14 The Framework)
Detailed Objector Submissions in response to Supporting Documents/Case Law
6.234 I have, as previously mentioned, received a number of detailed objector responses to specific consultant reports produced in support of the application.
6.235 The responses have been forwarded to the relevant statutory consultees for consideration alongside the formal application submissions.
6.236 Whilst the relevant statutory consultee responses do not necessarily make reference to the objector submissions, they have been considered in the round.
6.237 have also received submissions in relation to potentially relevant Case Law. As members will be aware, the particulars of appeals, and relevance to specific sets of circumstances varies. The case law I have referenced through this report is what the Council considers to be the most relevant to the circumstances, and most up to date in relation to these specific circumstances.
m) Planning Obligations
6.238 Planning obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), commonly known as s106 agreements, are a mechanism for securing benefits to militate against the impacts of development.
6.239 Those benefits can compromise, for example, monetary contributions (towards public open space or education, amongst others), the provision of affordable housing, on site provision of public open space / play area and other works or benefit’s that meet the three legal tests.
6.240 Planning obligations must be:
•necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms •directly related to the development •fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development
6.241 These legal tests are also set out as policy tests in paragraph 204 of the Framework.
6.242 Policy CS12 provides that new development will be required to provide the necessary infrastructure which will arise as a result of the proposal. More detailed guidance on the level of contributions is set out in The Leicestershire Developer Guidance Note 2014, and HDC Supplementary Planning Document relating to Planning Obligations..
6.243 Appendix A identifies the developer contribution sought by consultees, an assessment as to whether the requests are CIL compliant and a suggested trigger point to advise when the contribution should be made.
6.244 Officers consider that all requests are CIL Regulation 122 and 123 compliant
7. Conclusion / Planning Balance
7.1 The Framework requires LPAs to grant planning permission for sustainable development. Para.7 of the NPPF states: “There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental”.
7.2 In terms of economic considerations, additional housing would provide employment and business generation during the construction period and the ensuing occupiers would contribute to the local and wider economy.
7.3 In social terms, the development would provide much needed housing in a Rural Centre settlement, thereby helping to meet proven local housing needs (both market housing and
affordable housing needs). The development would contribute to evidence-based social and environmental infrastructure needs in the locality.
7.4 The proposal would make a significant contribution to the Council's Five Year Housing Land Supply (5YS), which is a consideration in favour of the proposal as the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5 Year Supply..
7.5 The site is located on the edge of a sustainable settlement, within a reasonable walking/cycling distance to the village centre which contains facilities and services. Access would also be improved through associated highways works.
7.6 Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and whilst layout and appearance are reserved matters, the illustrative masterplan and supporting information indicate a high quality design could be developed that would respect the rural setting of the village and safeguard the amenity of existing residents.
7.7 The site is well contained to the east and west of the site, and suitable mitigation can be secured to the north and south. In landscape and visual terms therefore the proposals are broadly acceptable subject to suitable and robust landscape mitigation and off set by improvements to biodiversity.
7.8 The proposal would not lead to unacceptable amenity relationships for proposed residents or surrounding residents, would not harm general amenities in the area, would not adversely affect ecological or arboricultural interests.
7.9 The County Archaeologist has advised refusal of the application given that the results of the trial trenching are not known at this stage. However, this application has been appealed on the grounds of non determination, which is why it has been brought forward for consideration by members at this Committee. Noting that the application will be going forward to appeal, by which time the results of the trenching will be known, in officer opinion it would be unreasonable to consider a refusal on this basis alone. Issues regarding archaeology would be considered as part of the appeal. In any event as mentioned ht e matter could probably be dealt with by plangent condition.
7.10 The impacts of the development on existing community infrastructure provisions, including off site highways works and requirements would be mitigated by a range of infrastructure contributions.
7.11 With appropriate mitigation where required, the proposal accords with the up-to-date elements of Policies CS1, CS2, CS3, CS5, CS8, CS9, CS10, CS11, CS12 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy and no other material considerations indicate that the policies of the Development Plan should not prevail.
7.12 When assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 14 (presumption in favour of sustainable development), as well as the Framework taken as a whole, no significant and demonstrable harm is identified and thus the proposal should be approved without delay.
7.13 The recommendation has been made taking into account Paragraphs 186 and 187 of the Framework, as well as the national Planning Practice Guidance.
7.14 Subject to final comments and potential mitigation requirements relating to Highways, and Archaeology, the proposal is considered to meet the relevant national and local policies.
7.15 On balance, therefore the adverse impacts of the development are not considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions (see Appendix B) and the S106 (see Appendix A), including any subsequent off site mitigation works to be required by the LPA.
Appendix A – Planning Obligations
APPENDIX A PROPOSED PLANNING OBLIGATIONS
Request by LCC Obligation for Highways Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification Policy Basis TBC Request by LCC Obligation for Civic Amenity Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification Policy Basis £0 – Existing capacity is sufficient
Request by LCC Obligation for Library Services Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification The proposed The library facilities contribution is Planning Obligations development on outlined in the Leicestershire Planning Supplementary Oaks Road, Great Obligation Policy (adopted 3rd Planning Document Glen is within 0.9 December 2014). The County Council Jan 2017 km of Great Glen consider the proposed development is Library on Ruperts of a scale and size which would have Leicestershire Way being the an impact on the delivery of library Planning Obligations nearest local library facilities within the local area. Policy Adopted 3rd facility which would The proposed development on Oaks December 2014. serve the Road, Great Glen is within 0.9 km of development site. Great Glen Library on Ruperts Way The library facilities being the nearest local library facility contribution would which would serve the development be £5,130 site. The library facilities contribution (rounded up to the would be £5,130 (rounded up to the nearest £10). nearest £10). 1 bedroom It will impact on local library services houses/apartments in respect of additional pressures on @ £15.09 per the availability of local library facilities. house/apartment The contribution is sought for 170 refurbishment and improvement to 2+ bedroom Great Glen Library to account for houses/apartments additional use from the proposed @ £30.18 per development. It will be placed under house/apartment project no.GRE003. This is currently
1 bedroom student the only obligation under GRE003 dwelling @ £10.06 (subject to change due to future per priorities of the library service). house/apartment. The Leicestershire Small Area Population and Household Estimates 2001-2004 gives the settlement population for Great Glen Library at approximately 3,460 people. The library has an active borrower base of 437 people. Active users of Great Glen Library currently borrow on average 27 items a year. The national performance indicator NI9 measures the percentage of adults who have used a public library service in the past 12 months (the latest figure is Oct 08 - Oct 09) and for Leicestershire this figure is approximately 48%. This figure would be higher if children were factored into the equation. Consequently the proposed development at Oaks Road, Great Glen is likely to generate an additional 245 plus users and would require an additional 590 items of lending stock plus reference, audio visual and homework support material to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development on the local library service. The County Council consider the library contribution is justified and is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms in accordance with the relevant national and local policies and the additional demands that would be placed on this key infrastructure as a result of the proposed development. The contribution requirement is directly related to the development because the contribution is to be used for the purpose of providing the additional capacity at the nearest library facility to the proposed development which is at Great Glen. It is considered fair and reasonable in scale and kind to the proposed scale of development and is in accordance with the thresholds identified in the adopted policies and to meet the additional demands on the library facilities at Great Glen which would arise due to this proposed
development. Whilst the outline planning application currently does not have an indicative or detailed schedule of accommodation then the figure given below is only illustrative if the development was for example to be all two plus bedroom dwellings. However the actual amount of the library contribution will be based on the house sizes and schedule of accommodation and need to be linked to the figures provided in the table below:- Request by LCC Obligation for Education Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification Policy Basis Total Requirement: To be Agreed Core Strategy CS12. £930,590.51 broken down as: Assessment of Local Community Provision and Developer Contribution (Roger Primary School The site falls within the catchment Tym Report, October Sector area of Great Glen St Cuthbert’s C of 2010) Requirement E Primary School. The School has a £314,574.26 net capacity of 315 and 351 pupils are Planning Obligations projected on the roll should this Supplementary development proceed; a deficit of 36 Planning Document pupil places. A total of 10 pupil places Jan 2017 are included in the forecast for this school from S106 agreements for Leicestershire other developments in this area and Planning Obligations have to be discounted. This reduces Policy Adopted 3rd the total deficit at this school to 26 December 2014. pupil places. There are no other primary schools within a two mile walking distance of the development. The 41 pupil places generated by this development can therefore be partly accommodated at nearby schools and a claim for an education contribution of 26 pupil places in the primary sector is justified. In order to provide the additional primary school places anticipated by the proposed development the County Council would request a contribution for the Primary School sector of £314,574.26. Based on the table above, this is calculated the number of deficit places created by the development (26) multiplied by the
DFE cost multiplier in the table above (12,099.01) which equals £314,574.26. This contribution would be used to accommodate the capacity issues created by the proposed development by improving, remodelling or enhancing existing facilities at Great Glen St Cuthbert’s C of E Primary School. The contribution would be spent within five years of receipt of final payment. and would not exceed the maximum of 5 developer contributions towards a specific project
Secondary School The site falls within the catchment (11-18) Sector area of Oadby Beauchamp College Requirement The College has a net capacity of £616,016.25 2109 and 2422 pupils are projected on roll should this development proceed; a deficit of 313 pupil places. A total of 154 pupil places are included in the forecast for this school from S106 agreements for other developments in this area and have to be discounted. This reduces the total deficit at this school to 159 pupil places. There is one other school in the 11-18 sector within a three mile walking distance of the development. Gartree High School, Oadby Deficit 143 (no S106 funded places to be discounted) There is an overall deficit in this sector of 302 pupil places. The 34 places generated by this development cannot therefore be accommodated at nearby schools and a claim for an education contribution of 34 pupil places in the 11-18 sector is justified. In order to provide the additional 11- 18 school places anticipated by the proposed development, the County Council requests a contribution for the 11-18 school sector of £616,016.25. Based on the table above, this is calculated the number of deficit places created by the development (34) multiplied by the DFE cost multiplier in the table above (£18,118.13) which equals £616,016.25.
This contribution would be used to accommodate the capacity issues created by the proposed development by improving, remodelling or enhancing existing facilities at Beauchamp College. The contribution would be spent within 5 years With the rapidly changing environment of Education provision in Leicestershire it is becoming increasingly difficult to state which school or schools will serve a development once it is complete. We therefore request some flexibility in the use of the S106 funding generated by this development to enable the S106 contribution to be used for the provision, improvement, remodelling or enhancement of education facilities at schools in the locality of the development which the residents of the development would usually be expected to attend. Would not exceed the maximum of 5 developer contributions towards a specific project
NOTE: With the rapidly changing environment of Education provision in Leicestershire it is becoming increasingly difficult to state which school or schools will serve a development once it is complete. We therefore request some flexibility in the use of the S106 funding generated by this development to enable the S106 contribution to be used for the provision, improvement, remodelling or enhancement of education facilities at schools in the locality of the development which the residents of the development would usually be expected to attend.
Request by LCC County Council Monitoring Cost Contribution Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification Policy Basis 2% or £300 of the It is appropriate for the County Core Strategy: Policy
total value of each Council to recover costs associated CS12, Appendix 2 contribution in with the negotiating, production and (Infrastructure favour of the subsequent monitoring of developer Schedule), County Council contributions. This covers any costs (whichever is the associated with obtaining independent Leicestershire greater) or specialist advice to validate aspects Planning Obligations of the contributions and the costs of Policy Adopted 3rd monitoring the payment and December 2014. implementation of schemes and funding.
Request by HDC Obligation for Public Open Space Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification Policy Basis £335,478.00 TBC All POS to be provided on site, except Provision for Open Cemeteries and Burial Grounds Space Sport and contribution. Any off site contributions Recreation (HDC, to be through negotiation of S106 with 2015) officers. If off site contributions are required this will either be for Core Strategy: Policy enhancement of existing facilities or CS12, Appendix 2 provision of new facilities within the (Infrastructure accessibility thresholds of the site for Schedule) each typology. If more Open Space than the minimum provision for any The Framework (Para typology is proposed by the 73) developer, then commuted sums will be calculated on a pro rata basis. Planning Obligations SPD (Jan 2017) Request by HDC Obligation for Affordable Housing Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification Policy Basis Our Affordable 50% to be built A fundamental objective of the CS is In accordance with Housing out and to meet the need for affordable Policy CS3. requirement will be transferred to housing (CS Strategic Objective 1 and This policy aims to to seek 40% a Registered CS Policy CS2). CS Policy CS3 seeks increase provision of Affordable Housing Provider (RP) a proportion of new dwellings within affordable housing, of the total site prior to 50% developments to be affordable. particularly in rural yield In accordance build out of the The 2014 SHMA indicates that 272 areas, in order to with Policy CS3. market affordable dwellings are required in meet the high need On a site proposal dwellings; the District per annum up to 2031. across the district as of 170 units , this The SHMA also recognises that this is demonstrated in the will equal 68 AH The remaining unrealistic. The Council’s target is to Strategic Housing units. Our tenure 50% to be built achieve 90 affordable dwellings per Market Assessment split requirements out and annum. (SHMA). are for the transferred to Providing affordable housing on site Affordable Housing affordable a RP prior to will result in an inclusive, sustainable SPD 2006 requirement to be 75% of build development. The size and tenure of provided as 60% out of the the affordable housing is based on the Planning Obligations rented (40 units) market current needs of those on the Supplementary and 40% (28 units) dwellings. Council’s waiting list. Planning Document be provided as Jan 2017
intermediate or shared ownership. How ever we can be flexible with our tenure requirements. We will not stipulate our specific unit mix and tenure split for the affordable house types at this point in time. We will provide our exacting requirements if and when a full application is submitted.
This ensures greater accuracy in our request for specific unity types and accords more accurately with our housing need profile at a point when the scheme is more likely to be progress
A wider strategic assessment for delivering AH is currently under review. We may as a result consider other options / ways for delivering AH. I have checked there is a detailed Planning Statement which commits to the provision of onsite AH. The applicant is advised to consult our RP partners at the earliest opportunity. ( RP contact list is contained in the below noted
guidance note).I am also attaching our Guidance Note which makes reference to SHMA and the house type profiles needed in Harborough District. The applicant’s proposals for housing on this site should reflect this.
I have requested housing need and demand data from our HSS Team to guide our unit type preferences. I am happy to discuss matters with the developer should they require further advice. Request by HDC Community Facilities Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification Policy Basis £169,320 for new 1st Trigger fair and reasonable in scale and kind Planning Obligations build/extension/upg 50% prior to to the proposed scale of the Supplementary rade to existing commenceme development and is in accordance Planning Document premise projects nt. with the thresholds identified in the (January 2017) 2nd Trigger adopted policies and to meet the (this figure will alter 50% prior to additional demands on the Great Glen according to the first occupation Community Facilities finalised housing numbers and mix. Currently based on the average figure for a 3 bedroom dwelling) Request by HDC Obligation for Performance Bond Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification Policy Basis In the event of payments required at Planning Obligations some future date, the applicant may Supplementary be required to enter into a bond with a Planning Document bank or insurance company in order (January 2017) to prevent any default in payment through bankruptcy, liquidation or refusal to pay.
Request by HDC Obligation for
Monitoring Fee Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification Policy Basis District contribution TBC It is appropriate for the Council to Planning Obligations – 15% of recover costs associated with the Supplementary application fee or negotiating, production and Planning Document £250 per subsequent monitoring of developer (January 2017) contribution contributions. This covers the legal costs of creating agreements, any costs associated with obtaining independent or specialist advice to validate aspects of the contributions and the costs of monitoring Request by Obligation for Leicestershire Police Police Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification Policy Basis Not requested Request by NHS Obligation for NHS Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification
Based on the The proposed site is within the Core Strategy: Policy number of practice area of Kibworth CS12, Appendix 2 dwellings proposed Health Centre, which has a (Infrastructure the figure branch surgery in Great Glen Schedule), requested is and therefore likely to have an £85,361.76 impact due to the increased Leicestershire population. Planning Obligations Policy Adopted 3rd Kibworth Health Centre have December 2014. stated the following: The Framework We do feel very much that our Section 8 premises at Great Glen are so small and not fit for purpose and that taking any additional patients would be difficult as there has already been considerable development in Great Glen.
We currently only have two consulting rooms and a very tiny waiting room and although we have previously looked to extend, we do not have the land available to do this. Would it be possible to use s106 money to fund Doctors space in the proposed new community centre in Great Glen. ELRCCG is requesting a
capital contribution from the developer towards the use of Doctors space in the proposed new community centre in Great Glen.
The indicative size of the premises requirements has been calculated based on current typical sizes of new surgery projects factoring in a range of list sizes recognising economies of scale in larger practices.
The cost per sqm has been identified by a quantity surveyor experienced in health care projects. This is the cost of providing additional accommodation for 408 patients as part of the extension to existing building;
Site: Oaks Road Great Glen notes; The site is considered to be in urban location for Ref 16/01501/OUT semi natural and natural greenspace therefore the lower Dwelling Number 170 amount per 100 population is used. All POS provision Assumed should be made on site except cemetery and burial Population 391 ground provision and some of the greenway contribution which will be used to enhance the links and accessibility tot he existing cycle and walking network off site. All typologies are required on site except outdoor sports provision. However there are currently some quality issues and enhancements that need to be made locally All figures are from Provision for Open Space Sport at Gt Glen Recreation ground and a contribution, off site, and Recreation 2015 towards these will be sought. Total commuted maintenance for Commuted minimum area of Off site Minimum sum for POS type POS (payable only contribution if Area (ha) maintenance if the POS is required per ha adopted by DC or PC) Parks and Gardens On site 0.1955 £574,757.00 £112,364.99 0.5ha per 1000 pop Outdoor Sports oversupply of Facilities 1.6ha per 0 £141,111.00 £0.00 £277,610.00 typology 1000 pop
Amenity Greenspace On site 0.3519 £224,692.00 £79,069.11 0.9ha per 1000 pop rural areas 8.5ha per 1000 0 £260,117.00 £0.00 Natural and Semi pop Natural Greenspace* urban areas 1.5ha per 1000 0.5865 £260,117.00 £152,558.62 pop Children and Young People Provision On site 0.1173 £3,051,803.00 £357,976.49 0.3ha per 1000 pop Allotments oversupply of 0.35ha per 1000 0.13685 £60,223.00 £8,241.52 typology pop provision of links, additional signage and Greenways 1.3ha on site and off other per 1000 site - see email 0.5083 enhancements £46,529.00 population text of the sustainable travel infrastructure Cemeteries and Burial Grounds Off site £11,339.00 0.375ha per 1000 contribution pop Total 1.89635 £335,478.00 All POS to be provided on site, except Cemeteries and Burial Grounds contribution. Any off site contributions to be through negotiation of S106 with officers. If off site contributions are required this will either be for enhancement of existing facilities or provision of new facilities within the accessibility thresholds of the site for each typology. If more Open Space than the minimum provision for any typology is proposed by the developer, then commuted sums will be calculated on a pro rata basis.
APPENDIX B – Suggested Conditions for 16/01501/OUT
1. Reserved Matters
No development shall commence on site until details of the following matters (in respect of which approval is expressly reserved) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
(a) The scale of the development;
(b) The layout of the development;
(c) The external appearance of the development; and
(d) The landscaping of the site (including specification of the children’s play area) .
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
REASON: The application was made for outline planning permission and is granted to accord with the provisions of Section 92 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Part 3 (6) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.
2. Time Limits
The development hereby approved shall begin before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.
REASON: To accord with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
3. Parameter Plan
The details to be submitted in accordance with Condition 1 shall be in general accordance with the principles and parameters described within the Illustrative Layout submitted (02016- 08 Rev D) and submitted Design and Access Statement.
REASON: To ensure the development results in a form of development which is appropriate to its context and safeguards existing residential amenity and to accord with Policies CS1, CS8, CS11 and CS17c of the Harborough District Core Strategy.
4. Levels
The layout and landscaping details to be submitted in accordance with Condition 1 shall include details of existing and proposed levels of the site and the finished ground floor levels of dwellings, garages and other structures. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that the work is carried out at suitable levels in relation to adjoining properties and the wider surroundings, having regard to amenity, landscape, biodiversity, access, highway and drainage requirements and to accord with Policies CS1, CS8, CS11 and CS17c of the Harborough District Core Strategy.
5. Boundary and Surface Treatments
The landscaping details to be submitted in accordance with Condition 1 shall include details of the position and design (dimensions and materials) of all boundary and surface treatments (including details of paths, driveways and all public areas). The boundary and surface treatments shall be provided to each dwelling before that dwelling is first occupied, or in accordance with an approved phasing plan.
Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development, in the interest of visual amenities and to accord with Policies CS1, CS8, CS11 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.
6. Materials Details
The external appearance details to be submitted in accordance with Condition 1 shall include details of the materials to be used externally in the construction of dwellings and other buildings (all bricks, including brick bond style, tiles, including ridge tiles, render types and colours, any date stones, garage door and other doors, windows, sills and lintels, corbel/dentil/string course brickwork, rainwater goods, porch canopies, bargeboards, fascias, soffits, finials and other external materials). Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained as such in perpetuity.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity, to ensure that the materials are appropriate to the character and appearance of the development and the surrounding area (including the setting of the nearby Conservation Area and Listed heritage assets) and to accord with Policies CS1, CS2, CS11 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.
7. Landscape
The landscaping details to be submitted in accordance with Condition 1 shall include supporting drawings/documents as outlined within the Pegasus letter to the applicant, and shared with the Council, dated 17th February 2017.
Reason: To ensure the proper management and maintenance of the landscaping in the interests of amenity and the character and appearance of the area and to accord with Policy CS8 and CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.
8. Landscape Management Plan
The landscaping details to be submitted in accordance with Condition 1 shall include a Landscape Management Plan which shall include the specification, the timing of the completion of and the arrangements for, the management and maintenance of:
All areas of informal and formal open space to be included within the development Children's play areas including all LEAP's and NEAP's Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems, watercourses and other water bodies Green Infrastructure linkages including pedestrian and cycle links, public rights of way and bridleways. The Landscape Management Plan shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with those details.
Reason: To ensure the proper management and maintenance of the approved landscaping in the interests of amenity and the character and appearance of the area and to accord with Policy CS8 and CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.
9. Car Parking Provision
Before first occupation of any dwelling, car parking shall be provided, hard surfaced and made available for use to serve that dwelling in accordance with Leicestershire County Council 6 ‘C’s Design Guide. The parking spaces so provided shall thereafter be permanently so maintained.
Reason: To ensure that adequate off-street parking provision is made to reduce the possibilities of the proposed development leading to on-street parking problems in the area.
10. Ecological Appraisal
The development herby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Mott MacDonald, September 2016)
Reason: To ensure species identified are protected during the construction period and safeguarded following completion of the development
11. Updated ecology survey
Updated protected species surveys shall be carried out (in optimum conditions) within 2 years of the original surveys submitted in support of this application. This should be in support of either a Reserved Matters application, or a start on site, if ether of these matters occur outside of the 2 year period that constitutes an up to day survey. The results and mitigation measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained as such in perpetuity.
Reason: In the interests of wildlife and nature conservation and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.
12. Storage Facilities for Refuse and Recycling Materials
No development shall commence on site until details of storage facilities for refuse and recycling materials (wheelie bins) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The storage facilities shall be provided for each dwelling in Accordance with the approved details before that dwelling is first occupied and, thereafter, shall be retained as such in perpetuity.
Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of refuse and recycling storage facilities, in the interests of visual amenities and general amenities and to accord with Policies CS1, CS11 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.
13. Construction Method Statement
No development shall commence on site (including any site clearance/preparation works), until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: a) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; b) loading and unloading of plant and materials; c) storage of oils, fuels, chemicals, plant and materials used in constructing the development;
d) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding, including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; e) wheel washing facilities and road cleaning arrangements; f) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; g) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from site preparation and construction works; h) measures for the protection of the natural environment; i) hours of work on site, including deliveries and removal of materials; and j) full details of any piling technique to be employed, if relevant. k) location of temporary buildings and associated generators, compounds, structures and enclosures l) details of the routing of construction traffic
Reason: To minimise detrimental effects to neighbouring amenities, the amenities of the area in general, the natural environment through pollution risks, and dangers to highway safety during the construction phase and to accord with Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.
14. Foul Drainage
Notwithstanding the details submitted with the Outline application, no development shall commence on site until full details of the design, implementation and maintenance/management of the foul drainage for the development, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and timetable and shall be retained as such in perpetuity.
Reason: To ensure the satisfactory drainage of the site/development and to require and, to minimise the risk of pollution and to accord with Policy CS10 of the Harborough District Core Strategy
15. Surface Water
No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until such time as a surface water drainage scheme has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.
The scheme shall include the utilisation of holding sustainable drainage techniques with the incorporation of sufficient treatment stages in a “treatment train”, in order to maintain or improve the existing water quality; the limitation of surface water run-off to the agreed greenfield run-off rate (Qbar) that is detailed within the Flood Risk Assessment 15289/FRA/DS Revision C dated Jan 2017; the ability to accommodate surface water run-off on-site up to the critical 1 in 100 year rainfall event plus an appropriate allowance for climate change; based upon the submission of drainage calculations; and details of the responsibility for the future maintenance of all of the sustainable drainage features.
The applicant should be aware that that any submitted storage calculations or models should include an assessment of “Urban Creep”, in line with Planning Practice Guidance paragraph: 085 Reference ID: 7-085-20150323.
Full details for the drainage proposal should be supplied, including but not limited to, headwall details, pipe protection details (e.g. trash screens), long sections and full model scenario’s for the 1 in 1, 1in 30 and 1 in 100 year + climate change. Where discharging to a sewer, this should be modelled as surcharged for all events above the 1 in 30 year, to account for the design standards of the public sewers.
Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage and disposal of surface water from the site.
16. Off Site Surface Water Sewer
No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until such time as an agreed programme for the upgrading of the surface water drainage network, to which the proposed outfall connects, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The programme shall include details of the design and upgrade of the existing STW Ltd adopted network and any phasing requirements and programme details agreed with third parties.
Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory capacity of the receiving water body and disposal of surface water from the site.
17. Construction Surface Water Management Plan
No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until such time as details in relation to the management of surface water on site during construction of the development has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.
Details should demonstrate how surface water will be managed on site to prevent an increase in flood risk during the various construction stages of development, from initial site works through to the completion of the final phase. This shall include temporary attenuation, additional treatment, flow controls and the maintenance and protection of any features. Particular attention should be paid to the protection of drainage assets from debris, detritus and silts arising from the construction and building work. Details regarding the protection of any proposed infiltration areas should also be provided.
Reason: To prevent an increase in flood risk, maintain the existing surface water runoff quality, and to prevent damage to the final surface water management systems through the entire development construction phases.
18. SuDS Maintenance Plan & Schedule
No development approved by this planning permission, shall take place until such time as details in relation to the long term maintenance of the sustainable surface water drainage system within the development have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.
Details of the site specific SuDS Maintenance Plan should include for routine maintenance, remedial actions and monitoring of the separate elements of the system, and should also include procedures that must be implemented in the event of pollution incidents within the development site.
Reason: To establish a suitable maintenance regime, that may be monitored over time; that will ensure the long term performance in terms of flood risk, water quality and biodiversity & amenity of the sustainable surface water drainage system within the proposed development.
Recommended Informative Notes
1. Building Regulations
The Applicant is advised that this proposal will require separate consent under the Building Regulations and that no works should be undertaken until all necessary consents have been obtained. Advice on the requirements of the Building Regulations can be obtained from the Building Control Section, Harborough District Council (Tel. 01858 821090). As such, please be aware that complying with Building Regulations does not mean that the Planning Conditions attached to this Permission have been discharged and vice versa.
2. Severn Trent Water
Severn Trent Water advise that although our statutory sewer records do not show any public sewers within the area you have specified, there may be sewers that have been recently adopted under The Transfer Of Sewer Regulations 2011. Public sewers have statutory protection and may not be built close to, directly over or be diverted without consent and you are advised to contact Severn Trent Water to discuss your proposals. Severn Trent will seek to assist you obtaining a solution which protects both the public sewer and the building.
3. Land Drainage Consent
If there are any works proposed as part of an application which are likely to affect flows in a watercourse or ditch, then the applicant may require consent under s.23 Land Drainage Act 1991. This is in addition to any planning permission that may be granted.
Guidance on this process and a sample application form can be found at the following: http://www.leicestershire.gov.uk/Flood-risk-management
4. Maintenance
Please note, it is the responsibility of the Local Planning Authority under the DEFRA/DCLG legislation (April 2015) to ensure that a system to facilitate the future maintenance of SuDS features can be managed and maintained in perpetuity, before commencement of the works.
5. Development Parameters
In relation to Condition 3 above, the applicants attention is drawn most particularly to the parameters of development that are identified as being of particular importance.
Glen Oaks woodland to be protected by at least a 10 meter buffer between the development and the woodland;
Consideration should be given to planting the northern end of the site as a species- rich meadow; There should be a 5 meter buffer between hedgerows and the development; The lighting scheme associated with the development should be designed to minimise light spill onto existing vegetation; The Sustainable Urban Drainage feature should include ecological enhancements and to be designed to hold some water at all times. It should also be planted with semi natural native vegetation; Limited number of dwellings to a maximum height of 2.5 storeys in less visually sensitive locations, General building heights would be limited to 2 storeys;
Would back onto the existing housing along the western boundary to create a secure back-to-back scenario; Create the opportunity for a permeable movement network;
Ensure retention of existing trees and hedgerows; and
Provide significant areas of new planting along the western and southern site boundaries, increasing the privacy of existing dwellings along Coverside Road.
A buffer of at least 30m between the NEAP and residential properties should be included.
Planning Committee Report
Applicant: Mr Szymborski
Application Ref: 16/01376/FUL
Location: Rose Cottage Farm, Crackbottle Road, Keythorpe
Proposal: Erection of an annex (revised scheme to 16/00123/FUL)
Application Validated: 28/10/2016
Target Date: 23/12/2016
Case Officer: Nigel Harris
Recommendation
Planning Permission is GRANTED for the following reason:
The development hereby approved by virtue of their size and design would not adversely affect amenities of adjoining residents, nor result in additional traffic which would give rise to a road safety hazard. Furthermore, the development will generate employment opportunities in the district. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policies CS7 & CS11 and no other material considerations indicate that the policies of the development plan should not prevail, furthermore the decision has been reached taking into account 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
1. Site & Surroundings
1.1 The application site comprises a two storey dwelling house with attached linked garage extending from the side of the property. The property is located in the open countryside in an isolated rural location set back from the road behind a front garden/driveway and boundary hedgerow. An agricultural unit and buildings are located immediately to the west of the site.
2. Site History
2.1 A previous application 16/00123/FUL which was for the Conversion of garage to annex and erection of a detached garage (revised scheme of 15/01247/FUL) was refused by the Council but was subsequently allowed at Appeal Ref:APP/F2415/D/16/3157576. A copy of the Appeal decision is attacked at Appendix A to this report.
2.2 The application was refused for the following reasons;
The proposal by virtue of its size and appearance will detract from the character, quality and appearance of the countryside and is contrary to core strategy policy CS11©.
3. The Application Submission
3.1 The application is an extension of existing buildings on site to form an Annex to the existing property.
Plan Showing Previous Approval and Current Scheme
3.2 The previous approval at Appeal allowed for the existing garage to be converted to ancillary accommodation and for a new garage measuring 8m X 7.5m to be erected.
3.3 This proposal is for the existing garage to remain but for a new ancillary building to be erected where the nee garage was to be constructed and connecting to the existing garage. The proposal would measure 16.7m X 5.5m and have a ridge height of 6.5m. a) Summary of Proposals
As above b) Schedule of Plans and Supporting Statements/Documents
The application was submitted with the following:
Application Forms Existing Plans and Elevations Proposed Plans and Elevations Site/Location Plan
c) Amended Plans and/or Additional Supporting Statements/Documents Submitted since Validation
None d) Pre-application Engagement
None e) Community Involvement
None
4. Consultations and Representations
4.1 Consultations with technical consultees and the local community were carried out on the original application submission and Amendments/Additional Information where necessary.
4.2 A summary of the technical consultee responses which have been received are set out below. If you wish to view comments in full, please request sight or go to www.harborough.gov.uk/planning
a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees
4.3 Parish Council
The Parish Council again objects to this planning application on the grounds that:
The plans have very little detail. Also on the application form there is no initial, just a surname. This current planning application is for a building twice as large as the original one, which was recommended for refusal by HDCs planning department on the grounds that its size would detract from appearance of the countryside and is contrary to the core strategy policy CS11(c).
The application was only allowed, on appeal, with conditions, these being that the annex could only be occupied for the ancillary use to Rose Cottage. If this amended planning application is approved, it will result in a large three-bedroom property.
The proposed annex appears to be out of all proportion to the original house and should not be considered or approved as an annex at all.
Finally, the Parish Council will not approve any more development on this site, until it has been cleared and tidied up and the Enforcement Notice 15/00052/UNTIDT has been cleared. b) Local Residents
4.4 A Site Notice was posted on 30th November 2016 and a total of 12 neighbouring properties were consulted as well as the adjoining Hallaton Parish Council. To date 8 letters of objection have been received and the main points raised are as follows.
Plans inaccurate and poor Extension is too big It will create a separate dwelling bigger than the original house The site is still a mess despite Enforcement Action The proposal is bigger than the one previously refused by the Council but allowed at Appeal
5. Planning Policy Considerations a) Development Plan
5.1 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 instructs that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan (DP), unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
5.2 Unless stated, an explanation of the development plan polices; material considerations, evidence base and other documents referred to can be found at the beginning of the Agenda under ‘All Agenda Items Common Planning Policy’.
5.3 The following policies and advice is considered relevant to the determination of this application.
Core Strategy
Policy CS11: Promoting Design and Built Heritage Policy CS17: Countryside, Rural Centres and Rural Villages
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Section 3 – Supporting a prosperous rural economy Section 7 – Good Design
b) Material Planning Considerations
5.4 None relevant.
c) Emerging Local Plan Evidence Base
5.5 None relevant.
d) Other Relevant Documents
5.6 None relevant. e) Other Relevant Information
5.7 None
6. Assessment a) Principle of Development
6.1 The application site comprises a two storey dwelling house with attached linked garage extending from the side of the property. The property is located in the open countryside in an isolated rural location set back from the road behind a front garden/driveway and boundary hedgerow. An agricultural unit and buildings are located immediately to the west of the site.
` Proposed Ground Floor Plan
Proposed First Floor Plan
6.2 The property is in a relatively large plot with a wider frontage. The proposed detached garage would therefore not appear overlarge, relative to the overall plot size. The two storey form of the proposed garage being set back with the use of matching materials and fenestrations, would ensure the proposal would sit relatively unobtrusively within the site against the two storey form of the main house and the existing garage.
6.3 This is similar to the previous Appeal scheme where the Inspector concluded that:
“As such I consider that the development, by virtue of the scale, siting and design would not be out-of-keeping with the existing buildings on the site and would have limited impact on the open character and appearance of the surrounding rural area.”
Design
6.4 The design of the proposed annex is intended to match the existing building in terms of appearance and material and would provide a kitchen, toilet and sitting area on the ground floor and two bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor.
6.5 It is intended that the works will be constructed using materials to match the existing and as with the previous Appeal decision it is not considered that the design of the Annex would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area and therefore would not be contrary to policy or advice. Whilst it is larger than the extant consent, it is still considered that it would not adversely impact on the character and appearance of the locality and surrounding area.
Residential Amenity
6.6 Due to the isolated location of the property in the countryside the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on any adjoining residents.
Other Matters
6.7 A number of representations have been received relating to the principle of the Annex but this was clearly considered by the Inspector at the last Appeal and was deemed to be acceptable subject to the imposition of a suitable condition.
6.8 In that case the Inspector concluded:
“Those conditions relating to the detailing of the external materials and finishes of the approved garage, the withdrawal of the permitted development rights and restricting the use of the annex as ancillary to the main dwelling on the site are appropriate as they would safeguard the amenities and character and appearance of the area and would be in the interest of highway safety.”
6.10 The current proposal is bigger than that sly approved by the Inspector at the Appeal but the principle of an Annex has been established on the site. Therefore, the issue is whether a larger Annex is acceptable in design and impact terms. As stated above it would be built of matching materials and would be of similar scale to the existing dwelling. As a consequence its impact on the site and surrounding area will be limited even though it is larger than the permitted scheme.
6.11 A number of letters and the comments of the Parish Council have also related to the state of the adjacent land and various enforcement issues. This is a separate matter to the determination of this application. An Appeal against the Enforcement Notice issued in respect of the matters relating to the adjacent land has been lodged and is expected to go to a Public Inquiry later this year.
7. The Planning Balance / Conclusion
7.1 The proposal is judged to represent sustainable development in accordance with the Framework and the relevant polices set out in the Core Strategy. Concerns over the use of the Annex and that it could be used as separate dwelling is covered by proposed Condition 5 which will restrict the occupancy of the building. This is the same condition which was imposed by the Inspector on the Appeal.
7.2 The current proposal is bigger than that sly approved by the Inspector at the Appeal but the principle of an Annex has been established on the site. Therefore, the issue is whether a larger Annex is acceptable in design and impact terms. As stated above it would be built of matching materials and would be of similar scale to the existing dwelling. As a consequence its impact on the site and surrounding area will be limited even though it is larger than the permitted scheme
7.3 Consequently, it is concluded that the development would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would be consistent with the design aims of Policy CS11 (c) of the Harborough District Core Strategy 2011. This policy seeks, amongst other things, to ensure that development is a high standard of design which respects the qualities, character and amenity of the local area.
8. Recommended Planning Conditions
8.1 If Members are minded to approve the application a list of suggested conditions is set out below:
1 The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. Reason: To accord with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: Location Plan 1:1250, Existing Garage Elevations and Floor Plans 1:100 and Proposed Amended Site Plan, Elevations and Floor Plans for the Detached Garage and alterations to the Existing Garage 1:100. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been permitted. 3 No development shall commence until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the detached garage hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area and to accord with the Harborough District Council Core Strategy Policy CS11. 4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the detached garage hereby permitted shall not be converted to habitable accommodation. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to enable the Local Planning Authority to consider individually whether planning permission should be granted for additions, extensions or enlargements and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11. 5 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as Rose Cottage Farm. Reason: The additional accommodation is sited in a position where the Local Planning Authority, having regard to the reasonable standards of residential amenity, access, and planning policies pertaining to the area, would not permit a wholly separate dwelling and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.
Notes to Applicant
1 You are advised that this proposal may require separate consent under the Building Regulations and that no works should be undertaken until all necessary consents have been obtained. Advice on the requirements of the Building Regulations can be obtained from the Building Control Section, Harborough District Council. As such please be aware that according with building regulations does not mean that the planning conditions attached to this permission have been discharged and vice versa.
Planning Committee Report
Applicant: Miss Imogen Gibbs
Application Ref: 16/01602/FUL
Location: Bryer House, Welham Road, Thorpe Langton
Proposal: Erection of two storey front and rear extensions; installation of dormer to front elevation and alteration to front fenestration and installation of first floor windows to both side elevations
Application Validated: 5th October 2016
Target Date: 6th December 2016
Case Officer: Nigel Harris
Recommendation
Background: This decision is to be taken by the Planning Inspectorate under appeal APP/F2415/W/16/3165557. The Council does not refuse or grant permission now an appeal has been made.
The Council submission to the appeal should state that if the Council had taken a decision it would have resolved to REFUSE the planning application, for the reasons set out in the committee report and below:
1) In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, due the size, scale and location of the proposed extensions it is considered that the application, if permitted, would have an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties more particularly Caudle House. As a consequence the development would be contrary to Policy CS11 of the Harborough Core Strategy and the advice contained in the NPPF.
1. Site & Surroundings
1.1 The existing dwelling Bryer House is situated at the heart of the village and is surrounded by existing residential properties. Access to the dwelling is off Welham Road. The existing dwelling is a modest property which is of no architectural merit and does not intrinsically add the street scene. It is set at road level whilst many of the surrounding properties to the rear are at a lower level. It has a long rear garden which drops away from the rear of the house.
2. Site History
2.1 16/00863/CLU - Certificate of Lawfulness for proposed development of two storey front and single and two storey rear extensions – Application Refused
15/02019/FUL - Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a replacement dwelling – Application Withdrawn
04/01877/FUL - Erection of a first floor extension to rear of dwelling – Application Approved 25.11.04
3. The Application Submission
3.1 The application site is located on the northern side of Welham Road, Thorpe Langton within the Harborough District.
3.2 The existing two storey dwelling is set back from Welham Road adjacent to Fernie Chase, a small cul-de-sac of relatively modern dwellings. The application site lies between two existing dwellings, Swallows and Caudle House. To the north of the application site is open countryside. The rear boundary of the property marks the defined limits of the village in this area, as defined on the inset map contained within the adopted Harborough District Local Plan.
3.3 Given its location in relation to St Leonard’s Church, Manor Farmhouse and Manor Cottage (the only listed buildings in the village) and as there is no designated conservation area in the village, it is not considered that there are any heritage assets that could potentially be affected by the proposal.
a) Summary of Proposals
3.4 The application proposes a two storey rear, a two storey side and a single storey front extension to the existing dwelling. The dwelling would continue to be accessed from Welham Road and a parking area sufficient for at least three vehicles would be retained.
3.5 The extensions have been designed to improve the appearance of the existing dwelling. The dwelling is reasonably modern, having been constructed in the late 1960s/early 1970s but is out of character with many of the properties in the surrounding area. b) Schedule of Plans and Supporting Statements/Documents
3.6 The following were submitted as part of the application:
Application Forms Location and Site Plan Planning Justification Statement Existing Plan Proposed Plans & Elevations c) Amended Plans and/or Additional Supporting Statements/Documents Submitted since Validation
3.7 None received. d) Pre-application Engagement
3.8 Some pre-application discussions were held on site where the principles of the extensions were discussed.
e) Community Involvement
3.9 None
4. Consultations and Representations
4.1 Site Notices were posted around the site on 17th October 2016. Further consultations were undertaken with local residents and Statutory Consultees. The representations received are set out below.
4.2 A summary of the technical consultee responses which have been received are set out below. If you wish to view comments in full, please request sight or go to www.harborough.gov.uk/planning
a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees
4.3 Thorpe Langton Parish Council
By a substantial margin the Parish Council object to the application.
b) Local Residents
4.4 A total of 43 local residents were consulted on the proposed application. To date there have 21 letters of objection and 17 letters of support. The points raised by the objectors are as follows:
The Proposals are too big for a small site Overdevelopment Will adversely impact adjacent properties No account taken of different levels Loss of light and privacy The plans are inaccurate
The points raised by the supporters are as follows: The property is out of character with village so the alterations will improve the area It will improve the appearance of the building Make it more a family sized property The design is sympathetic to the area The house need modernising
5. Planning Policy Considerations
5.1 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 instructs that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan (DP), unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
5.2 Unless stated, an explanation of the development plan polices; material considerations, evidence base and other documents referred to can be found at the beginning of the Agenda under ‘All Agenda Items Common Planning Policy’
a) Development Plan
Harborough District Core Strategy
5.3 The following aspects of the Core Strategy are relevant to this application:
Policy CS1 (spatial strategy) Policy CS2 (housing) Policy CS11 (design)
The saved polices of the Harborough District 2001 Local Plan
b) Material Planning Considerations
5.4 Material Planning Considerations relevant to this application:
The National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework / NPPF)
National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
c) Emerging Local Plan Evidence Base
5.5 None relevant.
d) Other Relevant Documents
5.6 None.
e) Other Relevant Information
5.7 None.
6. Assessment
6.1 The application is being reported to the Planning Committee as the applicant has appealed against non determination of the proposal and the Local Planning Authority needs to prepare its Statement of Case by 9th March. In that the Council has to state what it would have decided on the application if it had been reported to Planning Committee for their determination.
a) Principle of Development
6.2 The application proposes a two storey rear, a two storey side and a single storey front extension to the existing dwelling. The dwelling would continue to be accessed from Welham Road and a parking area sufficient for at least three vehicles would be retained.
6.3 The extensions have been designed to improve the appearance of the existing dwelling. The dwelling is reasonably modern, having been constructed in the late 1960s/early 1970s but is out of character with many of the properties in the surrounding area. The existing dwelling is a modest property which is of no architectural merit and does not intrinsically add the street scene. It is set at road level whilst many of the surrounding properties to the rear are at a lower level. It has a long rear garden which drops away from the rear of the house.
6.4 The principle of redeveloping or extending the house is not one at issue. It is the scale, size and design of the proposed extensions and alterations which are of concern. Queries were raised with the applicants over the accuracy of the plans and drawings but the Appeal was submitted prior to any discussions taking place over this issue. b) Locational Sustainability
6.5 The property is located within the middle of the village of Thorpe Langton and as such there are no concerns or objections to the proposal in terms of it being a sustainable location.
Design
6.6 The existing dwelling Bryer House is an unattractive modern building situated back off the Welham Road.
6.7 The property enjoys an extensive rear garden area which is set at a much lower level than the existing house and falls away from the property. There are two existing neighbouring houses which abut the application site and these are both at a lower level than Bryer House.
6.8 The design of the extensions will leave the overall ridge height of the dwelling unchanged but would significantly alter the scale and massing of the dwelling to its rear.
Proposed Front and Side Extension
6.9 It can be seen from the drawings submitted that whilst the overall height of the dwelling is not increased, the scale and massing of the extensions would extend the property further to the rear and along the side elevations. This has dramatically altered the appearance of the dwelling and also its relationship with adjoining houses to the side and rear.
Highways
6.10 There are no objections to the proposal on highway grounds.
Residential Amenity
6.11 It is acknowledged that the appearance of the dwelling will be improved in the street scene and that the alterations will provide a more modern living accommodation. However, there is a significant levels difference between the application site and the two properties to the side and rear.
6.12 The Drawing below was submitted by the applicants to demonstrate that the extensions would not have an adverse impact on these properties but in particular Caudle House.
6.13 The purpose of the plan was to demonstrate the distances from the new extensions to the existing adjacent property. However, the accuracy of this plan was questioned and the plan takes no account of the difference in the levels. A request was submitted to the applicants for verification of the drawings but before a meeting could be arranged on site to discuss them the Appeal was lodged.
6.14 Notwithstanding this, it is evident on site that the proposed extension and alterations particularly those on the rear elevation of the house would, because of the difference in levels have an adverse impact on surrounding properties and in particular Caudle House. This adverse impact would negatively effect the amenities of this property by virtue of the scale and position of the extensions and alterations which would appear over bearing and imposing on their private amenity space.
d) Planning Obligations
None required
7. The Planning Balance / Conclusion
7.1 The proposal is judged to represent sustainable development in accordance with the Framework. However, due to the size, scale and location of the proposed extensions it is considered that the application, if permitted, would have an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties more particularly Caudle House. As a consequence the development would be contrary to Policy CS11 of the Harborough Core Startegy and the advice contained in the NPPF
8. Recommended Planning Conditions
8.1 Should the application have been determined by Committee it is recommended that it should have been REFUSED for the following reason(s)
2) In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, due the size, scale and location of the proposed extensions it is considered that the application, if permitted, would have an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties more particularly Caudle House. As a consequence the development would be contrary to Policy CS11 of the Harborough Core Strategy and the advice contained in the NPPF.
However, If Members would have been minded to approve the application the list of suggested conditions that would have been imposed is attached below.
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. Reason: To accord with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: Location Plan 1:1250, Existing Elevations and Floor Plans 1:100 and Site Plan, Proposed Elevations and Floor Plans 1:100. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been permitted. 3) No development shall commence until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extensions hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area and to accord with the Harborough District Council Core Strategy Policy CS11.
Planning Committee Report
Applicant: Everards Brewery Ltd
Application Ref: 16/01760/ADV
Location: Old Black Horse, 36 Main Street, Houghton On The Hill
Proposal: Replacement advertisement's (2x Fascia Signs, 2x Hanging Signs, Car Park Sign, 3x LED Floodlights, 2x Internally Illuminated Wall Signs)
Application Validated: 01/11/2016
Target Date: 27/12/2016
Case Officer: Nigel Harris
Recommendation
Advertisement Consent is GRANTED for the following reason:
The advertisements hereby approved by virtue of their size and design would not adversely affect amenities of adjoining residents, nor result in additional traffic which would give rise to a road safety hazard. Furthermore, the development will generate employment opportunities in the district. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policies CS7 & CS11 and no other material considerations indicate that the policies of the development plan should not prevail, furthermore the decision has been reached taking into account 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
1. Site & Surrounding
1.1 The Public House is situated at the centre of the village off Main Street.
1.2 The building is modest in scale and is predominately constructed of white render with a slate tiled roof. There are elements of brickwork located to the side and rear of the building.
1.3 To the east of the main building there is a large surface car park and a small external seating area.
1.4 The property lies within the designated Houghton on the Hill Conservation Area.
2. Site History
2.1 16/01776/FUL - Insertion of terrace doors to front elevation; alterations to existing terrace including alterations to surfacing and the erection of post and rope boundary treatment and planters to boundary - Pending
3. The Application Submission
3.1 The proposals are to replace the signage of the public house. These are as follows:
2x Fascia Signs, 2x Hanging Signs, Car Park Sign, 3x LED Floodlights, 2x Internally Illuminated Wall Signs
3.2 A separate application for some alterations to the building is awaiting determination under delegated powers. a) Summary of Proposals
3.3 As above. b) Schedule of Plans and Supporting Statements/Documents
3.4 The application was submitted with the following documents:
Application Forms Existing Elevations Proposed Elevations Photographs Site and Location Plan
c) Amended Plans and/or Additional Supporting Statements/Documents Submitted since Validation
3.5 None. d) Pre-application Engagement
3.6 None. e) Community Involvement
3.7 None.
4. Consultations and Representations
4.1 Consultations with technical consultees and the local community were carried out on the original application submission and Amendments/Additional Information where necessary.
4.2 A summary of the technical consultee responses which have been received are set out below. If you wish to view comments in full, please request sight or go to www.harborough.gov.uk/planning
a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees
4.3 LCC – Highways
Comments awaited.
4.4 HDC – Environmental Health
Comments waited.
4.5 Parish Council
The Parish Council considered the above application and resolved to comment that there were concerns over light pollution and that the brightness was likely to be more than normal.
b) Local Residents
4.6 A total of 11 neighbouring properties were consulted on the application and 5 letters of representation have been received raising the following points:
Object to the style and design of the new beacon Not in keeping with pub or area Light Pollution Loss of privacy Danger to road users
5. Planning Policy Considerations a) Development Plan
5.1 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 instructs that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan (DP), unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
5.2 Unless stated, an explanation of the development plan polices; material considerations, evidence base and other documents referred to can be found at the beginning of the Agenda under ‘All Agenda Items Common Planning Policy’.
5.3 The following policies and advice is considered relevant to the determination of this application.
Core Strategy
Policy CS7: Enabling Employment and Business Development Policy CS11: Promoting Design and Built Heritage Policy CS17: Countryside, Rural Centres and Rural Villages
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Section 3 – Supporting a prosperous rural economy Section 4 – Promoting sustainable transport (Paragraph 32)
b) Material Planning Considerations
5.4 None relevant. c) Emerging Local Plan Evidence Base
5.5 None relevant. d) Other Relevant Documents
5.6 None relevant.
e) Other Relevant Information
5.7 None
6. Assessment
Principle of Development
6.1 The principle of the use of signage on the public house is well established and therefore the assessment of this application is whether the new advertisements proposed would have an adverse impact on the character of the area and on local residents.
Design
6.2 The signs that currently adorn the building are somewhat dated and are predominantly green in line with the company’s logo.
6.3 The new signs are predominately black and white and would be less intrusive in appearance both on the building and when viewed in the street scene.
New Name sign for front of building
New hanging sign
6.4 Three LED floodlights are proposed to be installed. Two will be sited on the front of the building and one on the side elevation fronting the car park and seating area.
6.5 Finally the Beacon to the side of the public house is to be adapted with an insert of clear acrylic with a “fire” digital print applied to it and then internally illuminated.
6.7 It is anticipated that the new signage will appear as follows:
Highways
6.7 The Highways Authority were consulted on the application but no comments have been received. It is not considered that any of the proposed signs would adversely affect road users and therefore there can be no objections on highway grounds to the proposals.
Heritage
6.8 Whilst the Public House is not a Listed Building it is situated within the designated Houghton on the Hill Conservation Area. As a consequence any new signage should not adversely affect or impact on the character and appearance of the area.
6.9 It is considered that the use of the black and white signage over the traditional green and gold is an improvement and that overall the collection of proposed changes to the
signage including the beacon are acceptable in this location and would not have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
Residential Amenity
6.10 Some concerns have been expressed by a number of residents and the Parish Council over both the style of the signage and the luminance of it. However, the new LED Floodlights will be located on the front and side of the building facing at and therefore it is not considered that these should cause an issue. Furthermore their brightness can be conditioned and no comments or objections have been received from the Council’s Environmental Heath Section.
6.11 In respect of the comments on the new design of the beacon this is more a matter of personal taste and therefore not a planning matter. As stated earlier, it is not considered that the new design would have a detrimental impact on the street scene or on the Conservation Area.
Planning Obligations
6.12 Not applicable with this application.
7. The Planning Balance / Conclusion
7.1 The proposal is judged to represent sustainable development in accordance with the Framework and the advertisements would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area or on the Conservation Area. It is also not considered that the development would have an adverse impact on local residents.
8. Recommended Planning Conditions
8.1 If Members are minded to approve the application a list of suggested conditions is set out below.
Advertisement Consent is granted subject to the following conditions:
1 No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission. No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to— (a) endanger persons using any highway, railway, waterway, dock, harbour or aerodrome (civil or military); (b) obscure, or hinder the ready interpretation of, any traffic sign, railway signal or aid to navigation by water or air; or (c) hinder the operation of any device used for the purpose of security or surveillance or for measuring the speed of any vehicle. Any advertisement displayed, and any site used for the display of advertisements, shall be maintained in a condition that does not impair the visual amenity of the site. Any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a condition that does not endanger the public. Where an advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the site
shall be left in a condition that does not endanger the public or impair visual amenity. REASON: To accord with Regulation 14 (7) of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.
2 This consent shall expire at the end of the period of 10 years from the date of this Notice. REASON: To accord with Regulations 14 (7) and (8) of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.
3 The advert hereby granted consent shall not be retained on the site after the expiry of 10 from the date of this decision. REASON: To ensure that the advert is removed at end of the limited period specified, in the interests of amenity and/or public safety.
4 The advertisement(s) permitted by this consent shall only be illuminated during the opening hours of the premises to which it relates. REASON: In the interests of amenity.
5 The intensity of the illumination of the advertisements(s) hereby approved shall be no greater than X candela. REASON: In the interests of amenity and/or public safety.
Informative(s)
1 The applicant is advised that formal consent of the Highway Authority is required under the Highways Act for anyone to erect a sign or similar structure which will overhang the highway and this may be obtained from the Southern Area Manager
Planning Committee Report
Applicant: Everards Brewery Ltd
Application Ref: 16/01776/FUL
Location: Old Black Horse, 36 Main Street, Houghton on The Hill
Proposal: Insertion of terrace doors to front elevation; alterations to existing terrace including alterations to surfacing and the erection of post and rope boundary treatment and planters to boundary
Application Validated: 7/11/2016
Target Date: 2/1/2017
Case Officer: Nigel Harris
Recommendation
Planning Permission is GRANTED for the following reason:
The development hereby approved by virtue of their size and design would not adversely affect amenities of adjoining residents, nor result in additional traffic which would give rise to a road safety hazard. Furthermore, the development will generate employment opportunities in the district. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policies CS7 & CS11 and no other material considerations indicate that the policies of the development plan should not prevail, furthermore the decision has been reached taking into account 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
1. Site & Surroundings
1.5 The Public House is situated at the centre of the village off Main Street.
1.6 The building is modest in scale and is predominately constructed of white render with a slate tiled roof. There are elements of brickwork located to the side and rear of the building.
1.7 To the east of the main building there is a large surface car park and a small external seating area.
1.8 The property lies within the designated Houghton on the Hill Conservation Area.
2. Site History
2.1 16/01760/ADV - Replacement advertisement's (2x Fascia Signs, 2x Hanging Signs, Car Park Sign, 3x LED Floodlights, 2x Internally Illuminated Wall Signs) - Pending
3. The Application Submission
3.1 The proposals are to insert a new set of terrace doors on the side elevation of the public houses and to resurface, landscape and improve the outside seating area.
3.2 A separate application for some alterations to the building is awaiting determination under delegated powers. a) Summary of Proposals
3.3 As above. b) Schedule of Plans and Supporting Statements/Documents
3.4 The application was submitted with the following documents:
Application Forms Existing Elevations Proposed Elevations Photographs Site and Location Plan
c) Amended Plans and/or Additional Supporting Statements/Documents Submitted since Validation
3.5 None. d) Pre-application Engagement
3.6 None. e) Community Involvement
3.7 None.
4. Consultations and Representations
4.1 Consultations with technical consultees and the local community were carried out on the original application submission and Amendments/Additional Information where necessary.
4.2 A summary of the technical consultee responses which have been received are set out below. If you wish to view comments in full, please request sight or go to www.harborough.gov.uk/planning
a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees
4.3 Parish Council
No Comments b) Local Residents
4.4 The application was advertised in the local press on 24th November 2016 and a site notice was posted on 9th November 2016.
4.5 A total of 9 local residents were consulted and one letter has been received with concerns about the insertion of terrace doors. With the advent of more frequent live music events, excessive noise from the pub late at night can be a problem from time to time, especially if windows are open. Concern is that terrace doors would allow even more noise to be heard from the pub late at night. Would ask that, if permission is given for terrace doors to be inserted, the doors are not left open at times when there is a lot of noise inside the pub, especially late at night
5. Planning Policy Considerations a) Development Plan
5.1 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 instructs that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan (DP), unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
5.2 Unless stated, an explanation of the development plan polices; material considerations, evidence base and other documents referred to can be found at the beginning of the Agenda under ‘All Agenda Items Common Planning Policy’.
5.3 The following policies and advice is considered relevant to the determination of this application.
Core Strategy
Policy CS7: Enabling Employment and Business Development Policy CS11: Promoting Design and Built Heritage Policy CS17: Countryside, Rural Centres and Rural Villages
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Section 3 – Supporting a prosperous rural economy Section 4 – Promoting sustainable transport (Paragraph 32)
b) Material Planning Considerations
5.4 None relevant. c) Emerging Local Plan Evidence Base
5.5 None relevant.
d) Other Relevant Documents
5.6 None relevant.
e) Other Relevant Information
5.7 None
6. Assessment a) Principle of Development
6.1 The principle of the use of the public house is well established and therefore the assessment of this application is whether the new alterations proposed would have an adverse impact on the character of the area and on local residents
Design
6.2 The proposal is to insert an new set of terrace doors into an existing side elevation.
Existing Elevation
Proposed Side Elevation
6.3 It is also proposed to improve the appearance of the outside seating area with a new pebble surface material, new ropes and planters.
6.4 The design of all of these alterations is considered acceptable and would improve the external appearance of the public house.
Heritage
6.5 Whilst the Public House is not a Listed Building it is situated within the designated Houghton on the Hill Conservation Area. As a consequence any new signage should not adversely affect or impact on the character and appearance of the area.
6.6 It is considered that the proposed alterations are an improvement and that they would not have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
Residential Amenity
6.7 The concerns of the local resident is noted and suitable conditions can be imposed to restrict noise outside the premises. The outside area already exists and therefore it is considered that the improvements to its appearance should be welcomed. d) Planning Obligations
6.8 Not applicable with this application.
7. The Planning Balance / Conclusion
7.1 The proposal is judged to represent sustainable development in accordance with the Framework and the proposed alterations would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area or on the Conservation Area. It is also not considered that the development would have an adverse impact on local residents.
8. Recommended Planning Conditions
8.1 If Members are minded to approve the application a list of suggested conditions is set out below.
Planning Permission is granted subject to the following conditions:
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
REASON: To accord with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 The development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with the following approved plans:
Proposed Plan and Elevations – Drawing No. 7518-04
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt.
3 The development hereby permitted shall be constructed entirely of the materials as detailed in plan(s) in Condition 2.
REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area and to accord with the Harborough District Council Core Strategy Policy CS11.
4 No sound-amplifying equipment, loudspeaker, public address system shall be installed/operated or music played outside the premises or its curtilage.
REASON: To ensure the creation/retention of an environment free from intrusive levels of noise and activity in the interests of the amenity of the area and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.
Informative(s)
1 You are advised that this proposal may require separate consent under the Building Regulations and that no works should be undertaken until all necessary consents have been obtained. Advice on the requirements of the Building Regulations can be obtained from the Building Control Section, Harborough District Council (Tel. Market Harborough 821090). As such please be aware that complying with building regulations does not mean that the planning conditions attached to this permission have been discharged and vice versa.
Planning Committee Report Applicant: Miss Gillian Wood
Application Ref: 16/01953/FUL
Location: Land rear of The Fox & Hounds, Hallaton Road, Tugby
Proposal: Erection of two semi-detached dwellings and remodelling of associated parking
Application Validated: 02/12/16
Target Date: 27/01/17 (Extension of Time agreed)
Consultation Expiry Date: 03/02/17
Site Visit Date: 08/12/16
Case Officer: Janet Buckett
Recommendation
Planning Permission is APPROVED, for the reason below,
The development hereby approved would be in keeping with the form, character and appearance of the surrounding settlement and Conservation Area, would not have an adverse affect on the amenity of adjoining residents and would not result in additional traffic which would give rise to a road safety hazard. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Harborough District Local Plan Policy HS/8 and Core Strategy Policies CS2, CS5, CS11 and CS17 and no other material considerations indicate that the policies of the development plan should not prevail, furthermore the decision has been reached taking into account 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
1. Site & Surroundings
1.1 Tugby is a Selected Rural Village which has Limits to Development. The application site is within the centre of the village, within the Limits to Development, and is also in the Conservation Area.
Figure 1: Site Location Plan
Figure 2: Tugby Conservation Area
1.2 The application site is an existing car park that serves The Fox & Hounds Public House including an area of elevated scrubland that is enclosed by a retaining wall and is unused.
Figure 3: Looking east within the car park and towards the rear of the public house
Figure 4: Looking towards the proposed site of the houses
Figure 5: Existing Topographical Survey of site
1.3 Along the south boundary of the site, fronting the highway, is the Fox & Hounds Public House. To the north of the site is Tugby C of E Primary School. To the east of the site are residential dwellings and their gardens.
2. Site History
2.1 Prior to this application, the site has been subject to planning applications as below:
11/00067/FUL Partial change of use to residential dwelling, erection of new pitched roofs, and replacement windows and doors.
The residential part of the above application is now Cub Cottage which adjoins the public house and fronts the highway.
3. The Application Submission
a) Summary of Proposals
3.1 The proposed development includes rearranging and marking out the pub car park, the removal of the elevated scrubland, and the erection of two semi-detached dwelling houses. The ground level of the properties is to be the same as the existing car park level and retaining walls are to be erected along the north and east boundaries of the site. The proposed dwellings will each have three bedrooms and two parking spaces each. The public house will have ten parking spaces and Cub Cottage is to have two spaces. A beer garden is to be situated at the rear of the
public house and it is proposed that there will be landscaping on the boundary between the dwelling houses and the public car park.
Figure 6: Proposed Site Layout
b) Documents submitted
i. Plans
3.4 The application has been accompanied by the following plans: –
4125/GW/16/001 P1 Location Plan 4125/GW/16/002 P1 Topographical Survey Plan 4125/GW/16/003 P4 Proposed Site Plan 4125/GW/16/004 P4 Proposed Ground & First Floor Plans 4125/GW/16/005 P4 Proposed Elevations
4125/GW/16/003 P3 Superseded by above. The access was amended to address highway concerns.
ii. Supporting Statements
3.5 The application has been accompanied by the following supporting information:
Photographic Document October 2016 Design and Access Statement Ref. 4125 December 2016 by Corporate Architecture (Amended version received 8th December 2016)
c) Pre-application Engagement
3.6 Prior to submitting the planning application a pre-application enquiry was submitted.
4. Consultations and Representations
4.1 Consultations with technical consultees and the local community were carried out on the application. This occurred on 5th December 2016, including a site notice posted on the 8th December 2016. Amended plans were re-consulted on 20th January 2017. The consultation period expired on 3rd February 2017.
4.2 Firstly, a summary of the technical consultee responses received is set out below. If you wish to view the comments in full, please go to: www.harborough.gov.uk/planning
a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees
Tugby and Keythorpe Parish Council 4.3 No comments received.
LCC Highways 4.4 Initial response –
The Local Highway Authority informs the Local Planning Authority that additional information outlined in this response is required, and the Local Highway Authority is unable to provide a detailed response in accordance with article 20(4) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 until after the information requested has been received and considered.
ADVICE TO LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY The County Highway Authority (CHA) would make the following comments on the proposed development and would advise that the Local Planning Authority await this further assessment and redesign prior to determining the submitted application.
Vehicle and pedestrian visibility splays should be demonstrated at the proposed residential access with Hallaton Road. Whilst the alignment of Hallaton Road means that visibility is somewhat restricted to the existing site, users of the existing access can do so from a central point where visibility will be improved. However, the proposed residential access is located adjacent to the site’s northern boundary and at which point visibility is likely to be significantly more restricted by third party land. Beginning the separate private access road would likely overcome this and enable greater provision for passing other vehicles which would be of wider benefit given the narrow access drive. The proposed parking provision is substandard in width and would appear to be a reduced provision over that currently available for the use of visitors to the public house. The parking proposed is also going to be very difficult to navigate into which is likely to make the 9 spaces proposed less usable. There is a reasonable chance therefore that the proposal could lead to an increase in parking within the public highway.
The County Highway Authority’s 6Cs Design Guide would typically advise that if a driveway length is more than 25m, its minimum width should be 5m (plus any widening where bounded by walls) to enable access by refuse vehicles. This advice
is based on BS5906, 2005, which sets out maximum carry distances of 25m for refuse collection. Where this distance is exceeded, the British Standard recommends: a minimum drive width of 5m; providing turning heads within the site; and constructing the drive so it can carry a refuse vehicle. If an alternative provision for refuse collection is anticipated for this site then this ought to be clarified noting that the aforementioned is unlikely to be possible and therefore refuse vehicles accessing the site may be unlikely.
The same issue exists for the public house both in terms of deliveries and refuse collection where a bin store is shown in excess of 25m from the public highway and the latest proposal would appear to prevent a refuse or service vehicle from accessing, turning and leaving the site in a forward gear. As such the applicant should clarify how this aspect is expected to operate.
Response further to amended plans –
- The Local Highway Authority advice is that, in its view the residual cumulative impacts of development can be mitigated and are not considered severe in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF, subject to the Conditions outlined in this report. ______ADVICE TO LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY
The revised layout enables the access arrangements as currently operates and consequently overcomes the County Highway Authority’s (CHA) previous concerns with the restricted visibility for the residential element. The CHA does note the pedestrian visibility splays are drawn incorrectly on the submitted layout plan however given the existing access arrangements and plan proposed the CHA would not be in a position to advise that the proposal would derive a residual impact that were demonstrably severe.
Conditions
1 No development shall commence on the site until such time as a construction traffic/site traffic management plan, including wheel cleansing facilities and vehicle parking facilities, and a timetable for their provision, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable.
Reason: To reduce the possibility of deleterious material (mud, stones etc) being deposited in the highway and becoming a hazard to road users, and to ensure that construction traffic/site traffic associated with the development does not lead to on- street parking problems in the area.
2 The car parking and any turning facilities shown shall be provided, hard surfaced and made available for use before the dwelling is occupied and shall thereafter be permanently so maintained.
Reason: To ensure that adequate off-street parking provision is made to reduce the possibilities of the proposed development leading to on-street parking problems in the area.
Notes To Applicant
- All works within the limits of the highway with regard to the access shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Highways Manager- (telephone 0116 3050001).
LCC Ecology 4.5 No objections and no ecological surveys are required as the land is clearly of low ecological value at the moment. There are no habitats suitable for protected species on site.
LCC Archaeology 4.6 The Leicestershire and Rutland Historic Environment Record (HER) indicates that the site is located within an area of good archaeological potential and we therefore recommend that the applicant is advised of the following archaeological requirements.
The application area is located within the historic medieval and post medieval settlement core of Tugby Village (MLE10345), close to the sites of the Grade II* early medieval St Thomas a Beckets Church (MLE136578) and late medieval Manor House (MLE21882). Earthworks relating to the shrunken medieval village (MLE2565) ) have been recorded to the south of the application area: a watching brief undertaken nearby, close to Well Field, identified areas of cobbled surfacing, associated with sherds of 12th and 13th century pottery (MLE2566).
The application area is considered therefore to have good potential for the presence of below ground archaeological remains relating to the medieval and post-medieval settlement. Any groundworks associated with the development proposals, including stripping of topsoil or modern overburden, excavation of foundation and services and landscaping works, are likely to have a damaging impact upon any archaeological remains present here. We would therefore recommend that a programme of archaeological investigation and recording (Strip, Map and Record exercise, plus Archaeological Attendance) should be undertaken prior to the commencement of works.
In accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 129, assessment of the submitted development details and particular archaeological interest of the site, has indicated that the proposals are likely to have a detrimental impact upon any heritage assets present. NPPF paragraph 141, states that developers are required to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact of development. In that context it is recommended that the current application is approved subject to conditions for an appropriate programme of archaeological mitigation, including as necessary intrusive and non- intrusive investigation and recording. The Historic & Natural Environment Team (HNET) will provide a formal Brief for the latter work at the applicant’s request.
To ensure that any archaeological remains present are dealt with appropriately, the applicant should provide for an appropriate level of archaeological investigation and recording. This will consist of a programme of archaeological work, to be conducted prior to the start of the proposed development. The fieldwork will commence with an archaeological soil strip of the development area, followed by the investigation and recording of any exposed archaeological remains. In addition, all services and other ground works likely to impact upon archaeological remains should be appropriately investigated and recorded. Provision must be made within the development timetable for archaeologists to be present during these works, to enable the required level of archaeological supervision.
A contingency provision for emergency recording and detailed excavation should be made, to the satisfaction of your authority in conjunction with your archaeological advisors in this Department’s Archaeology Section. The Archaeology Section will provide a formal Brief for the work at the applicant’s request.
The applicant should, if planning permission is granted, also obtain a suitable written Specification and costings for the archaeological recording from an archaeological organisation acceptable to the planning authority. This should be submitted to this Archaeology Section, as archaeological advisors to your authority, for approval before the start of development.
The Specification should comply with the above mentioned Brief, and with relevant Chartered Institute for Archaeologists Standards and Code of Practice. It should include a suitable indication of arrangements for the implementation of the archaeological work, and the proposed timetable for the development.
We therefore recommend that any planning permission be granted subject to the following planning conditions, to safeguard any important archaeological remains potentially present:
1) No demolition/development shall take place/commence until a programme of archaeological work (Strip, Plan and Record Investigation and Archaeological Attendance) including a Written Scheme of Investigation has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and: The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording The programme for post investigation assessment Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation.
2) No demolition/development shall take place other than in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition (1).
3) The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition (1) and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory archaeological investigation and recording
The Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) must be prepared by an archaeological contractor acceptable to the Planning Authority. To demonstrate that the implementation of this written scheme of investigation has been secured the applicant must provide a signed contract or similar legal agreement between themselves and their approved archaeological contractor.
The Historic and Natural Environment Team, as advisors to the planning authority, will monitor the archaeological work, to ensure that the necessary programme of archaeological work is undertaken to the satisfaction of the planning authority.
b) Local Community
4.7 5 letters of objection from 5 different households raising the following points - 1) Is this build necessary? Haven’t we got the required number of houses already? 2) Loss of privacy, already overlooked by Manor Farm Close. Will be closed in on all sides. First floor will overlook my garden. 3) Congestion in the area around Fox & Hounds. Will there be space for manoeuvre? Access. Dividing into two would create more hazards. School traffic. Would be more sensible to turn whole area into a car park. 4) Plans are not to scale. Gives the impression the area is larger than it is. 5) 2 Grey Cottages is nearest independently owned property to the development. The first floor windows will overlook our garden and patio. The roofline will have an overbearing impact and the new building will only be 7m from boundary fence. 6) Does not seem that current parking levels can be maintained. Redesign brings car parking closer to the boundary fences of 1 and 2 Grey Cottages. 7) Safety of school children. 8) Does the development meet the needs of affordable housing and requirements of HDC or is this a speculative commercial proposition? 9) The scrubland was created following previous building works and was formally garden. 10) This and the surrounding area is sand based which may have impact on foundations and drainage. 11) Any development in this very restrictive conservation area would be out of character with the centre of the village and surrounding properties. 12) Detrimental effect on car parking arrangements for the pub, taking away much needed spaces to keep this small village pub thriving. The car park is already used by parents at the neighbouring school. Parking would be forced on to the roads which are narrow and where residents need to park. Parking on grass verges would cause considerable damage and residents do not want blocked driveways. 13) Really value the pub. It faces serious competition and disruption is potentially fatal. Think loss of parking will be more than one space. The current occupants run the pub superbly well and if they suffer a loss of income it is feared they would leave and it would stand empty or be changed in character. 14) It is likely the occupants would commute to work and will exiting the car park at the same time as the school traffic. This adds to risk to primary school children being dropped off even where there are yellow lines. 15) Must be better areas to build houses around village rather than packing them in as tight as possible.
5. Planning Policy Considerations
5.1 Please see above for planning policy considerations that apply to all agenda items.
a) Development Plan
o Harborough District Local Plan 5.2 Relevant Policy of HS/8 – Limits to Development. The site is located within the Limits to Development of Tugby.
o Harborough District Core Strategy (Adopted November 2011)
5.3 Relevant policies to this application are, CS1, CS2, CS5 and CS11. These are detailed in the policy section at the start of the agenda.
5.3 Policy CS17: Countryside, Rural Centres and Rural Villages is also relevant. This states that new development in Selected Rural Villages will be on a lesser scale than in Rural Centres and that development will be on a scale which reflects the size and character of the village concerned, the level of service provision and will take into
account recent development and existing commitments. Rural development will be located and designed in a way that is sensitive to its landscape setting, retaining and where possible, enhancing the distinctive qualities of the landscape character and conserves and, where possible, enhances settlement distinctiveness.
b) Material Planning Considerations
o Supplementary Planning Guidance
5.4 The Supplementary Planning Guidance Note that is relevant to this application is Note 3 Development of single plots, small groups of dwellings and residential development within Conservation Areas.
o The Framework
5.5 The National Planning Policy Framework states that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that development should be approved without delay if they accord with the development plan. It states that where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
5.6 The Framework states that the design of the built environment is of great importance and that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people.
c) Other Relevant Information
o Reason for Committee Decision
5.7 This application is to be determined by Planning Committee as 5 letters of objection from 5 different households have been received.
6. Assessment
a) Principle of Development 6.1 Tugby is a Selected Rural Village and therefore small scale development in keeping with the scale of the village is, in principle, acceptable and in accordance with Policies CS2 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.
b) Housing Requirement and Housing Land Supply 6.2 The Council presently does not have a 5yr Housing Land Supply. If this application were approved it would provide 2 additional dwellings.
c) Technical Considerations
1. Scale, appearance and landscaping 6.3 The application site is within the Limits to Development and Conservation Area of Tugby. The proposed dwellings are to be situated to the north of the existing land within the curtilage of the Fox & Hounds Public House utilising an area of elevated unused scrubland and existing car parking.
6.4 The proposal is within the built form of Tugby and in keeping with the character of the settlement. Immediately to the rear of the site is a school building and beyond that is
the new housing development of Manor Farm Close. To the east of the site are the gardens of the neighbouring properties and further to the east are properties situated back from Hallaton Road in line with the situation of the proposed dwelling houses. The proposal therefore respects the character and layout of the surrounding area.
6.5 The proposed dwelling houses are 7.985m high to the ridge line. Together they are 10.790m wide and they are 9.44m long. The proposals are an attractive, traditional yet simple design with features such as brick headers above the ground floor windows and stone cills on the front elevation, a timber pitched roof canopy over the front door and a brick string course below the first floor windows on all sides.
Figure 7: Proposed North West (Front) Elevation that faces the rear of the main school buildings
Figure 8: Proposed South East (Rear) Elevation
Figure 9: Proposed South West Elevation (Side)
Proposed 10: Proposed North East Elevation (Side)
6.6 Tugby contains a mixture of designs of properties and a mixture of red brick and render. It is considered that the proposed dwellings are of an appropriate scale, size and design and are in keeping with their village setting. The features add a nice character to the properties.
6.7 The land is to be excavated to remove the currently unused scrubland that is surrounded by a high retaining wall. This will result in the ground level of the houses being at the level of the car park that currently runs along the north-west boundary with the elevated site and the land level will gradually slope down to the Public House. Siting the houses at this level ensures that the proposals sit well within their surroundings and respect the character of the surrounding area. It will ensure the properties do not appear over dominant.
6.8 The hard landscaping of the site currently consists of a tarmac car park and block paved beer garden. There are close boarded fences on the north-east and south- east boundaries, a 2.5m high brick wall on the north-west boundary with the school and a timber post and rail fence enclosing the beer garden. The brick walls around the elevated scrubland are modern.
6.9 The proposed car park is to be hardsurfaced with block paving indicating the majority of pub car parking spaces, and the parking spaces for the dwelling houses. Different size slabs indicate pedestrian walkways. Gabion retaining walls are to be constructed on the north-east and south-east boundaries with a 1.8m high fence on top which will be at the land level of the school land to the rear and the garden of Grey Cottage which is at a higher level in that location to the cottage. Soft landscaping is proposed in the front and rear gardens of the proposed dwelling houses and on the boundary between the new houses and the car park. It is considered that the landscaping proposed will respect and enhance the area.
6.10 Overall it is considered that the size, siting, scale, design of the proposed dwelling houses will respect and enhance the character of the village and that the proposed car parking and landscaping will be appropriate. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policies CS11 and CS17 c) of the Harborough District Core Strategy.
2. Heritage 6.11 Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy states that heritage assets within the District and their setting, will be protected, conserved and enhanced. Paragraph 132 of The Framework states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset great weight should be given to the assets conservation. The more important the asset the greater the weight should be. Paragraph 135 states that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account.
6.12 There are no designated heritage assets affected by the proposal.
6.13 The site is within the Conservation Area and the surrounding properties of the school, public house and nearest residential dwellings are all historic. It is considered that due to the size, scale and design of the proposed dwellings that they will respect and enhance the Conservation Area. Removing the current retaining walls and scrubland will contribute to enhancing the Conservation Area. The proposal therefore complies with Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.
3. Amenity
6.14 The nearest residential properties are Cub Cottage to the south of the site and 1 and 2 Grey Cottage and South View Farm.
6.15 Cub Cottage adjoins the public house and to the rear of their property they have a small back garden. Along the rear boundary of this will be 4 parking spaces, 2 of which will be theirs. The side elevation of Plot 2 will be approximately 16m from the rear of Cub Cottage but there are no habitable room windows proposed at first floor. There is a secondary kitchen/diner window at ground floor but it is not considered that this will result in a loss of privacy due to existing and proposed boundary treatments.
6.16 To the east is 1 and 2 Grey Cottage and South View Farm. They are set back from the road and have front gardens. The rear gardens of these properties increase in land level from Hallaton Road and adjoin the boundary of the application site. Although the gardens adjoin the site it is not their private amenity space immediately to the rear of the neighbour’s properties. The back gardens of the proposed dwellings will adjoin the back gardens of the neighbouring properties. The nearest part of the proposed dwelling houses will be 15.5m from the nearest part of 1 Grey Cottage. These are to the north-west of the rear of the properties and not directly to the rear. 1st floor bedroom windows are proposed on the rear elevation of the proposed dwellings but these will face towards the rear of the rear gardens of the neighbouring properties and not towards the rear of their houses or their private amenity spaces.
6.17 Overall it is considered that due to the siting and height of the proposed dwellings and their relationship with neighbouring properties that there will not be an unacceptable loss of residential amenity. The properties will not be overbearing and there will not be an adverse affect on privacy.
6.18 Car parking is to be created where the land is presently unused. The property most affected is Cub Cottage but 2 of the 4 spaces are to be for them. They currently are near to the existing car park and next to the beer garden and it is not considered that the impact on their residential amenity will be worse than the current situation. The parking for Cub Cottage will be next to the boundary with 1 Grey Cottage. However there will be a gabion wall on this boundary and it is not immediately close to primary, habitable room windows.
6.19 Overall it is considered that existing and future residential amenity will be safeguarded and the proposal will therefore comply with Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.
4. Highways 6.16 The proposed 3-bedroom dwelling houses should have two off street parking spaces and adequate turning. The Leicestershire County Council 6Cs Design Guide advises that parking spaces should be 2.4m x 5.5m. There is space for these sizes to be achieved in the designated parking areas for the two properties. There is also space for the cars to turn before reaching the access with Hallaton Road.
6.17 Initially LCC Highways raised concerns about the access but the revised site layout plan addressed these concerns. The scheme is now supported subject to two planning conditions.
d) Sustainable Development 6.18 The Framework identifies three dimensions to sustainable development – economic, social and environmental. Taking each of these in turn the following conclusions can be reached.
o Economic
As well as the direct economic benefits related to employment generation and investment, the proposal will deliver to 2 new dwellings.
o Social
Provides 2 new dwellings, which contributes to housing need.
o Environmental
The proposal is in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area, village setting and Conservation Area.
7. The Planning Balance / Conclusion 7.1 The proposed new dwelling houses and works to the site are considered to be of an acceptable scale, design, size and massing so as to enhance and respect the character of the Conservation Area and the street scape. The development respects the character of the surrounding settlement. Adequate parking and turning facilities are provided and residential amenity is safeguarded. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policies CS2, CS5, CS11 and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy and with the principles of the Framework.
APPENDIX A – Planning Conditions
8. Planning Conditions
Planning Permission Commencement 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. REASON: To accord with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Permitted Plans 2) The development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with the following approved plans 4125/GW/16/001 P1 Location Plan, 4125/GW/16/002 P1 Topographical Survey Plan, 4125/GW/16/003 P4 Proposed Site Plan, 4125/GW/16/004 P4 Proposed Ground & First Floor Plans and 4125/GW/16/005 P4 Proposed Elevations. REASON: For the avoidance of doubt.
Materials Schedule 3) No development shall commence on site until a schedule indicating the materials to be used on all external elevations of the approved dwellings has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained as such in perpetuity. REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area and to accord with the Harborough District Council Core Strategy Policy CS11.
Permitted Development removal 4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting or amending those Orders with or without modification), no development within Part 1, Classes A-E shall take place on the dwellinghouses hereby permitted or within their curtilage. No first floor windows shall be inserted in the south-west elevation of Plot 2. REASON: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to enable the Local Planning Authority to consider individually whether planning permission should be granted for additions, extensions or enlargements and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11
Traffic Management Plan 5) No development shall commence on the site until such time as a construction traffic/site traffic management plan, including wheel cleansing facilities and vehicle parking facilities, and a timetable for their provision, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable. REASON: To reduce the possibility of deleterious material (mud, stones etc) being deposited in the highway and becoming a hazard to road users, and to ensure that construction traffic/site traffic associated with the development does not lead to on- street parking problems in the area.
Car Parking & Turning 6) The car parking and any turning facilities shown on plan ref. 4125/GW/16/003 P4 shall be provided, hard surfaced and made available for use before the dwellings are occupied and shall thereafter be permanently so maintained.
REASON: To ensure that adequate off-street parking provision is made to reduce the possibilities of the proposed development leading to on-street parking problems in the area.
Drainage 7) Before first use of the development hereby permitted, drainage shall be provided within the site such that surface water does not drain into the Public Highway including private access drives, and thereafter shall be so maintained. REASON: To reduce the possibility of surface water from the site being deposited in the highway causing dangers to road users.
Landscaping 8) No development shall commence on site until a scheme of hard and soft landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the details of which shall include: (a) indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land; (b) details of any trees and hedgerows to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development; (c) all species, planting sizes and planting densities, spread of all trees and hedgerows within or overhanging the site, in relation to the proposed buildings, roads, and other works; (d) finished levels and contours; (e) means of enclosure; (f) hard surfacing materials; (g) minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse and other storage units, signs, lighting etc); (h) retained historic landscape features and proposed restoration, where relevant. (i) programme of implementation Thereafter the development shall be implemented fully in accordance with the approved details and retained in perpetuity. REASON: To enhance the appearance of the development in the interest of the visual amenities of the area and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.
Archaeology 9) No demolition/development shall take place/commence until a programme of archaeological work (Strip, Plan and Record Investigation and Archaeological Attendance) including a Written Scheme of Investigation has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and: The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording The programme for post investigation assessment Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation. REASON: To ensure satisfactory archaeological investigation and recording.
10) No demolition/development shall take place other than in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition (1). REASON: To ensure satisfactory archaeological investigation and recording
11) The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition (1) and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured. REASON: To ensure satisfactory archaeological investigation and recording
Notes to Applicant 1) You are advised that this proposal may require separate consent under the Building Regulations and that no works should be undertaken until all necessary consents have been obtained. Advice on the requirements of the Building Regulations can be obtained from the Building Control Section, Harborough District Council (Tel. Market Harborough 821090). As such please be aware that complying with building regulations does not mean that the planning conditions attached to this permission have been discharged and vice versa.
Planning Committee Report
Applicant: Mrs Maureen Pick
Application Ref: 16/02039/FUL
Location: Land off Chapel Lane, Tugby
Proposal: Erection of a dwelling (revised scheme of 16/01132/FUL)
Application Validated: 20/12/16
Target Date: 14/02/17 (Extension of Time agreed)
Consultation Expiry Date: 02/02/17
Site Visit Date: 31/01/17
Case Officer: Janet Buckett
Recommendation
Planning Permission is REFUSED, for the reasons set out below,
1) The proposed dwelling house by virtue of its design and size is not considered to respect the context of its location and does not respond to the unique characteristics of the individual site. The development does not respect or enhance the local character of the area in which it is located and it does not enhance the character of the Conservation Area. It does not enhance the character and quality of the landscape in which it is situated and does not enhance the settlement’s distinctiveness. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy CS11 and Policy CS17 c) of the Harborough District Local Plan.
2) The proposed dwelling house by virtue of its siting and size will not safeguard residential amenity and will have an unneighbourly relationship with Bramley Meadow. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Local Plan.
1. Site & Surroundings
1.1 Tugby is a Selected Rural Village which has Limits to Development. The application site is outside of the Limits to Development. These run along the edge of the neighbouring property’s garage (The Bungalow) and just to the rear of the properties of Bramley Meadow and Highcroft. The site is within the Conservation Area.
Figure 1: Site Location Plan
Figure 2: Tugby Conservation Area
Figure 3: Limits to Development
1.2 The site is accessed from Chapel Lane at its south east corner and there is an agricultural track that runs from this access through the site to a gate at the north- west side of the site. The site is enclosed by a wall, post and rail fence and vegetation along the boundary with Bramley Meadow, fencing and two gates to the north-west and a hedgerow on the north east boundary. There is a large tree in the hedgerow which has had some large limbs cut off it. To the south of the site is the property of Bramley Meadow and on the other side of the access is The Bungalow. Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7 show the site following the vehicular track that runs through it.
Figure 4: Bramley Meadow to the left and The Bungalow and its garage to the right
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
1.3 The land rises from Chapel Lane. The vehicular access track level rises from the front of the site to the rear but to the north of this track there is a significant bank and in places this bank is about 2m higher than the vehicular access track. Figures 4, 5, 6 and 8 show this.
Figure 8: Looking towards Chapel Lane. Beyond the horse box is the side elevation of The Bungalow’s detached garage.
1.4 There is a large telegraph pole to the north of the site and next to this is a stile serving the public footpath (Figure 9). The public footpath currently runs alongside the hedgerow which runs along the northern boundary of the site but the Senior Access & Development Officer (Rights of Way) at Leicestershire County Council commented on the first application submitted (16/00667/FUL) and advised that the legally defined line of the footpath passes through the middle of the site and not along its northern edge. An application was submitted to divert the footpath, should the proposed dwelling house be approved, when application 16/01132/FUL was submitted as its legally defined route is through the middle of where the house is proposed to be sited. If this current application were to be approved then a new application would need to be submitted to divert the footpath.
Figure 9
1.5 To the north-west, north and north-east of the site are fields and further north is the A47. Beyond the A47 is another part of Tugby that is outside of the Limits to Development and beyond the historic centre of the village that has developed from farms located there.
1.6 Bramley Meadow and Highcroft are large detached dwelling houses and The Bungalow is a detached bungalow with a detached single garage next to the application site. The majority of the other properties on Chapel Lane leading up to the site are historic.
2. Site History
2.1 Prior to this application, the site has been subject to planning applications as below:
16/01132/FUL Erection of 1 no. new dwelling (revised scheme of 16/00667/FUL) – Withdrawn 16/00667/FUL Erection of 1 no. new dwelling – Withdrawn
2.2 16/00667/FUL was submitted for one dwelling house. This application was due to be refused and the agent was advised of this. The application was therefore withdrawn. The proposed reasons for refusal and notes were sent to the agent –
1) The proposed dwelling house by virtue of its design and size is not considered to respect the context of its location and does not respond to the unique characteristics of the individual site. The development does not respect or enhance the local character of the area in which it is located and it does not enhance the character of the Conservation Area. It does not enhance the character and quality of the landscape in which it is situated and does not enhance the settlement’s distinctiveness. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy CS11 and Policy CS17 c) of the Harborough District Local Plan. 2) The proposed four bedroom dwelling house does not provide adequate parking or turning facilities which is contrary to Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Local Plan. 3) The proposed dwelling house by virtue of its siting and size will not safeguard residential amenity and will have an unneighbourly relationship with Bramley Meadow. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Local Plan. 4) The proposed dwelling house unlawfully obstructs a public right of way. The property is situated upon the legal line of the footpath and no reference is made to this in the planning application. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Local Plan and Paragraph 75 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Notes to applicant: 1) The blue outline on the submitted location plan is currently incorrect and incorporates land outside of the applicant’s ownership. 2) Notwithstanding the current lack of 5-year land supply it is considered that this proposal would be contrary to Paragraph 14 of the NPPF as the current proposal would have adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits that one dwelling house would bring. 3) Neither the proposed garage or driveway meet the standards set out in the Leicestershire County Council 6Cs Design Guide.
2.3 No pre-application enquiry was made before application 16/01132/FUL was submitted. The design, size and siting of the proposed dwelling was the same as previously submitted. The differences between the applications were that the second application included a relocated public right of way, which the first application did not, and it showed Bramley Meadow on the proposed elevations. During the course of the application the planning officer requested that the location plans be amended to correctly show the blue outline as when it was submitted it still showed land outside of the applicant’s ownership within the blue outline. This application was again withdrawn as was due to be recommended for refusal.
2.4 The agent met with the Planning Applications and Connections Team Leader before submitting this application and was given a copy of the report that the planning officer had written that recommended refusal of 16/01132/FUL. The agent was advised to address the concerns detailed in the report.
3. The Application Submission
a) Summary of Proposals
3.1 The proposal is for a 4-bedroom dwelling house. It is sited parallel to the hedgerow which runs along the north-east boundary of the site and the house is 19.1m long. In the centre of the house is a two-storey section that is 8.7m wide at its widest. Either side of this central two-storey part the property is to be one and a half storey. These parts are 4.7m wide. There is a detached single garage to the south-east of the proposed dwelling house.
Figure 10: Proposed Site Layout
3.2 The site is accessed from the existing access and the existing vehicular track is to be tarmacked. At the entrance to the site is to be a turning head behind the garage of The Bungalow. There is then a single pitched roof garage. The garage door faces the proposed dwelling house. Between the garage and the house is a driveway and the dwelling house’s front elevation faces south-west and the access track.
3.3 The changes between application 16/01132/FUL and this current application are as follows.
16/01132/FUL 16/02039/FUL 27m long (including attached garage) 19.1m long (excluding detached garage) 9m wide at widest point 8.7m wide 8.2m high 8.1m high North-west section was two-storey and One and a half storey with dormer 7.5m high windows and 6.85m high South-east section was 8m long South-east section 6.4m long (boot room (excluding attached garage) removed) Windows in north east elevation at High-level windows above top of ground floor facing embankment embankment Retaining wall next to parking area Gabion retaining structure with post and rail fence on top South-west corner of house level with South-west corner 6.8m from line of rear rear of Bramley Meadow (corner of elevation of Bramley Meadow attached garage) See above Detached garage level with side elevation of Bramley Meadow
b) Documents submitted
i. Plans
3.4 The application has been accompanied by the following plans: –
4001/JP/15/001 E Site & Location Plans 4001/JP/16/005 D Proposed Ground & First Floor Plans 4001/JP/16/009 B Proposed Site Plan 4001/JP/16/008 C Proposed Site Plan 4001/JP/16/006 H Proposed Elevations 4001/JP/16/010 A Tugby Overall Site Context 4001/JP/16/002 A Topographical Survey
4001/JP/16/006 G Proposed Elevations, 4001/JP/008 B Proposed Site Plan and 4001/JP/16/009 A Proposed Site Plan – Superseded by above. The amendment was that public parking was removed from next to turning head.
ii. Supporting Statements
3.5 The application has been accompanied by the following supporting information:
Photographic Document December 2016 Ecological Scoping Survey on Land at Chapel Lane, Tugby, Leicestershire, April 2016 by Hillier Ecology Limited Design and Access Statement Rev. B December 2016 by Corporate Architecture
c) Pre-application Engagement
3.6 Prior to submitting the planning application the agent met with the Planning Applications and Connections Team Leader and was advised to address the concerns raised in the planning officer’s 16/01132/FUL report. These concerns were the same as those raised during application 16/00667/FUL and the draft reasons for refusal were sent to the agent at that time.
4. Consultations and Representations
4.1 Consultations with technical consultees and the local community were carried out on the application. This occurred on 28th December 2016, including a site notice posted on the 12th January 2017. Amended plans were re-consulted on 16th January 2017. The consultation period expired on 2nd February 2017.
4.2 Firstly, a summary of the technical consultee responses received is set out below. If you wish to view the comments in full, please go to: www.harborough.gov.uk/planning
a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees
Tugby and Keythorpe Parish Council 4.3 “At our Parish Council meeting on 28th May 2016, the Parish Councillors voted to object to planning application (16/00667/FUL) due to the very strong concerns and reservations felt by some of the residents of Chapel Lane.
The applicant then resubmitted 16/01132/FUL, and again, because of the objections made by the neighbouring households, the Parish Council objected to this resubmission, which looks from the plans to be identical to the original application.
Now once more, this application has been resubmitted again, (16/02039/FUL), using what looks like the same plans with the same dates on them. The Parish Council is again objecting to this application due to, again, to the same reasons, i.e. residents concerns, etc.
The Parish Council believes this proposed building falls outside the building line. (Information taken from the Tugby & Keythorpe Village Design Statement, written and published in 2003) and also this proposed site was not identified by HDC as a developable site in their Tugby Village Profile (May 2015).
The Parish Council notes that the applicant has now applied to have the public footpath (B89) rerouted, as this footpath runs though the middle of the proposed site. This would entail building steps and handrails, which would make it an impossible route for the less abled, and who foots the bill for this unnecessary work.
Also when looking at the ecological report given by Kirsty Gamble, County Hall, on 31st May 2016, again on 28th July 2016, and now again on 30th December 2016 by Kate Fenney, which states: 'The hedgerow forming the northern site boundary (adjacent to the footpath) is shown on aerial photographs to be mature, tall and thick. This hedgerow is likely to be used as a commuting route for bats, leaving their roost in the Church to forage in the wider countryside. We would therefore recommend that this hedgerow is retained and buffered from the development. No additional external lighting should face onto this hedgerow.'
This is not the case now, as someone has 'massacred' this hedge to 'within an inch of its life'. It is no longer tall and thick, but completely hacked back. The Parish Council would like to know if planning permission is required to carry out this work.
The Parish Council is also concerned about traffic/parking problems. On Chapel Lane there is a butchers shop, Doughty's, which only has two spaces for customers. As Chapel Lane is very narrow, customers, when seeing the spaces at the butchers
are taken, have no alternative, but to drive up to the top of Chapel Lane and turn round. Then they have to wait on Chapel Lane for a customer to leave, thus enabling them to park outside the butchers shop and not obstruct the road. Likewise when vans deliver to the butchers shop.
Also with the popularity of internet shopping, Tugby in general has a problem with large vans delivering goods to households. This is particularly difficult on Chapel Lane, being a single lane road. Likewise, with oil tankers, as Tugby has no gas supply, all households rely on oil deliveries.
It is with dismay that the Parish Council wonders why this applicant continues to apply for planning permission with the same set of plans and forms, etc”.
LCC Highways 4.4 Refers LPA to current standing advice dated September 2011. See PROW comment dated 04/01/17 and previous LHA comment for 16/00667/FUL (see below).
“I am aware that my colleague Piers Lindley has lodged a formal objection to this application albeit potentially could be mitigated against should the applicant apply to reroute the public right of way affected.
I have read the comments of objection and with regards to highway impact they seem to focus on the narrow access, parking provision and turning facilities proposed and I do note a discrepancy between the application form and planning statement where the former suggests 2 spaces will be provided and the latter 3 to serve the new dwelling.
However, I have checked and the extent of the public highway appears to end shortly after 1 Chapel Lane and as such any impact of the development proposal is not likely to be evident within the extent of publicly maintainable highway. For this reason whilst I take the points raised by the objectors I believe the issues become more of a local amenity / nuisance issue rather than evidence towards an argument of severe harm in accordance with the parameters set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.
Chapel Lane is a narrow, historic part of the network and whilst understandably difficult to negotiate at times with on street parking and should two vehicles meet travelling in opposite directions I do not think that the impact of one additional residential dwelling would bring about a ‘severe’ impact given the established nature of Chapel Lane, number of properties along it’s extent and probable extant agricultural planning use. I trust the above comments outline the County Highway Authority’s position in relation to the proposed residential dwelling and clarify the reasons why the CHA would not on this occasion seek to resist the application on highway grounds”.
LCC Ecology 4.5 “My colleague Kirsty Gamble was consulted earlier this year on an application on the same site (16/00667/FUL) her original comments and recommendations are still valid and are copied below for ease of reference:
The ecology report submitted in support of this application (Hillier Ecology, April 2016) is satisfactory. No protected species or ecological features of note were identified, and no further surveys are required. The hedgerow forming the northern site boundary (adjacent to the footpath) is shown on aerial photographs to be mature, tall and thick. This hedgerow is likely to be used as a commuting route for bats,
leaving their roost in the Church to forage in the wider countryside. We would therefore recommend that this hedgerow is retained and buffered from the development. No additional external lighting should face onto this hedgerow.
Anglian Water 4.6 The Growth and Planning Team provide comments on planning applications for major proposals of 10 dwellings or more, or if an industrial or commercial development, more than 0.5 ha. As your query is below this threshold we will not be providing comments. However, if there are specific issues you would like us to respond to, please contact us outlining the details.
LCC Rights of Way 4.7 Please find attached an extract from the Definitive Map with an overlay of the proposed development. As can be seen from the extract the legally defined line of the footpath passes through the middle of the site and therefore if permission to develop is granted a public path diversion order would be necessary under the provisions of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. In addition to determining whether or not this permission should be granted the planning authority will therefore also need to consider whether or not it is willing to divert the footpath under the aforementioned legislation.
Should planning permission be granted I would ask that the following conditions and considerations be adopted:-
1. The new footpath should comprise of a 2 metre wide tarmacadamed surface (or similar) with a 1 metre wide area of open space/verge between it and the adjacent hedge in accordance with the County Councils Guidance Notes for Developers. A copy of the guidance notes is attached for your information. Reason: in the interests of amenity, desirability, safety and security of users of the Public Right of Way.
2. The section of new footpath C D on the attached plan should be provided with a gradient of no more than, 1:12 in accordance the County Councils 6Cs Highways Guidance. (Steps may be considered if necessary).
3. No new trees or shrubs should be planted within 1 metre of the edge of the public right of way. Any trees or shrubs planted alongside the public right of way should be non-invasive species. Reason: in the interests of amenity, desirability, safety and security of users of the Public Right of Way.
4. Prior to construction, changes to existing boundary treatments running alongside the public right of way, must be approved by the Local Planning Authority following consultation with the Highway Authority. Reason: in the interests of amenity, desirability, safety and security of users of the Public Right of Way.
5. Prior to and during construction, measures should be taken to ensure that users of the Public Rights of Way are not exposed to any elements of danger associated with construction works, and wherever appropriate they should be safeguarded from the site by a secure fence. Reason: in the interests of safety and security of users of the Public Rights of Way.
The following notes should be drawn to the applicant’s attention:
a) An application should be made to Harborough District Council for the formal diversion of the public footpath to an approved new route, under the provisions of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.
b) The Public Rights of Way must not be further enclosed in any way without undertaking discussions with the County Councils Safe and Sustainable Travel Team (0116) 305 0001.
c) The Public Rights of Way must not be re-routed, encroached upon or obstructed in any way without proper authorisation. To do so will constitute an offence under the Highways Act 1980. d) If the developer requires a Right of Way to be temporarily closed or diverted, for a period of up to six months, to enable construction works to take place, an application should be made to [email protected] at least 8 weeks before the temporary closure / diversion is required.
e) Any damage caused to the surface of a Public Right of Way, which is directly attributable to the works associated with the development, will be the responsibility of the applicant to repair at their own expense to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority.
f) No new gates, stiles, fences or other structures affecting a Public Right of Way, of either a temporary or permanent nature, should be installed without the written consent of the Highway Authority having been obtained. Unless a structure is authorised, it constitutes an unlawful obstruction of a Public Right of Way and the County Council may be obliged to require its immediate removal.
Leicestershire Footpath Association 4.8 Object. “It is recognised by the applicant that the diversion of public footpath B89 will be necessary to enable the development to take place, and has submitted a plan of the proposed route.
Examination of the latter, together with information on the local topography supplied to the association, show that, although the proposed route is little different in terms of length from the current footpath line, there would be considerable differences in terms of ease of use, particularly for less mobile walkers. It appears that the route would have to surmount a substantial earth bank in some way, and there does not appear to be sufficient space to comply with the requirement of the LCC Rights of Way Officer that the gradient should not exceed 1 in 12.
It has been suggested that a more appropriate route for the diverted footpath may be available, and we would be willing to reconsider our objection if the proposed diversion is modified to use this route”.
LCC Archaeology 4.9 The Leicestershire and Rutland Historic Environment Record (HER) shows that the application site lies in an area of archaeological interest, within the shrunken medieval and post-medieval historic settlement core of Tugby (MLE10345), within the designated Conservation Area and close to the Norman church of St. Thomas a Becket (Grade II* listed 1326673; MLE13658). Given the location of the site, there is good potential for the presence of below-ground archaeological remains within the application area, which are likely to be affected by the development. The villages of Leicestershire and the wider English Central Midlands, appear to have evolved alongside their open field systems, during the later 1st millennium AD. Buried archaeological evidence, constituting one or more as yet unidentified heritage asset(s) (National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Section 12, paragraph 128 and Appendix 2), spanning the period from the earliest evolution of the village to its
more recent past can be expected within the development area. Consequently, there is a likelihood that buried archaeological remains will be affected by the development.
In accordance with the NPPF (Section 12, paragraph 141), the Local Planning Authority should require a developer to record and advance the understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance.
To ensure that any archaeological remains present are dealt with appropriately, the applicant should provide professional Archaeological Attendance for inspection and recording during the groundworks for the proposed development. A contingency provision for emergency recording and detailed excavation should be made, to the satisfaction of your authority in conjunction with your archaeological advisors in this Department’s Historic & Natural Environment Team (HNET). HNET will provide a formal Brief for the work at the applicant’s request.
If planning permission is granted the applicant must obtain a suitable written scheme for the investigation and recording from an archaeological organisation acceptable to the planning authority. This should be submitted to HNET, as archaeological advisors to your authority, for approval before the start of development. The Specification should comply with the above mentioned Brief, and with relevant Chartered Institute for Archaeologists Standards and Code of Practice. It should include a suitable indication of arrangements for the implementation of the archaeological work, and the proposed timetable for the development.
We therefore recommend that any planning permission be granted subject to the following planning condition (informed by paragraphs 53-55 of DoE Circular 11/95), to safeguard any important archaeological remains potentially present: 1) No demolition/development shall take place/commence until a programme of archaeological work including a Written Scheme of Investigation has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. 2) No demolition/development shall take place other than in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation. Reason: To ensure satisfactory archaeological investigation and recording.
The Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) must be prepared by an archaeological contractor acceptable to the Planning Authority. To demonstrate that the implementation of this written scheme of investigation has been secured the applicant must provide a signed contract or similar legal agreement between themselves and their approved archaeological contractor. The Historic and Natural Environment Team, as advisors to the planning authority, will monitor the archaeological work, to ensure that the necessary programme of archaeological work is undertaken to the satisfaction of the planning authority.
b) Local Community
4.10 7 letters of objection (from 4 different properties) raising the following points,
1) Would be greatly appreciated if the Council were minded to use its power to turn away this application. Understand may be possible where the developer makes repeated applications "perhaps in the hope of 'wearing down' local opposition" and where this "wastes a lot of time that the Council could better spend on other planning matters." [Harborough District Council Planning Guide]. Imagine this is intended to protect communities from commercial applications but in every other respect our situation here feels the same. 2) Overbearing impact from
development. 3) Building in the countryside. 4) Larger footprint than any existing properties in area. Squeezed onto an inappropriate plot. 5) Expanse of proosed frontage and height will be overbearing. Higher level than nearby properties. Scale out of keeping with the end of the lane and its open aspects. 6) Not identified by HDC as a ‘developable site’ in the Tugby profile document (May 2015). 7) Recent development at Manor Farm Close was site of an existing property. Given these extra homes no need for this additional dwelling. 8) There is a public footpath B89 which currently runs through the development site. The applicant proposes to re-route the footpath in a way that would require the building of steps (and handrails) to take the footpath down a steep bank. From section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, authorities have to be "satisfied that it is necessary" to do this re-routing. In fact, the new route suggested by the applicant is both dangerous and would create unnecessary ongoing costs. The route suggested by the applicant (C to D) would be dangerous and far less accessible by people with disabilities. Steps will be necessary down the steep bank (as the path would otherwise have a gradient significantly in excess of the Highways Agency guidance of 1:12) and would need to be maintained - who would be liable if someone were to trip? The steps would also take walkers directly across the path of traffic in the proposed 'public parking' area whereas the existing 'in use' path along the hedge is a more gentle, gradual incline and well away from traffic. Hence, if the development were to be allowed then a safer, cheaper and more accessible 'new' footpath route would be along the existing 'in use' footpath along the edge of the ancient hedgerow. 9) Hand- digging proposed near to hedge. Difficult to see how this will be achieved due to volume of soil that will need to be removed. The footpath has been damaged by previous applicant arranging for soil and vegetation to be removed prior to ecological report. Affects trust. 10) Already congestion from existing cars and delivery vehicles. Turning space indicated but on private land so can it be guaranteed. 11) Heavy rain, water gushes down Chapel Lane. The natural soakaway currently provided will be covered by the house and parking spaces. 12) Proposal is 2m from middle of the hedge so no allowance for hedgerow growth. Too close, especially during nesting period. Once original, thick, mature hedge has regrown will be a commuting route for baths. 8 windows face hedge so no external lighting but a lot of internal lighting. 13) New dwelling will run parallel to property/garden of Bramley Meadow. Will completely overlook both. Severe loss of privacy. Will impact on peaceful enjoyment of home and garden. (Supporting photos were submitted). Height difference of the land. Proposal will be on higher land than Bramley Meadow. Proposal’s ground floor, upstairs and dormer windows will result in overlooking. South-east elevation bedroom 4 will look directly into garden and bedroom window. Master bedroom south-west elevation will also overlook garden and paddock. Plans indicate Bramley Meadow has no side windows. Has a dining/kitchen window looking directly at site. Proposed garage in line with this so loss of light, privacy and overbearing. Human Rights Act – person has the right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions including home and land and respect for private and family life”. 14) Building will be visually overbearing and out of proportion to neighbouring properties. Dispute some of the measurements. 15) Due to difference in land levels and amount of earth to be moved concerned about drainage issues. 16) Inappropriate design for this part of the village. Large building out of keeping. Size, depth, width, height and massing will have an unacceptably adverse impact. Will be visible from A47. 17) Noise and light pollution from vehicles. 18) Bramley Meadow own first 30m of Chapel Lane from their driveway. Due to increased road usage and the turning area will the LHA adopt road? 19) Safety of young children and pedestrians. 20) Public Right of Way will run alongside boundary. Part of boundary wall is only 1.5m high and rest is post and rail fencing. Loss of privacy. 21) No indication of
connections to sewage, water and electricity. 22) Substantial building will be prominent. Will not enhance environment. 23) Unacceptable impact on the Conservation Area. 24) Design and scale is incongruous. 25) Over-development of site and size and shape unsuitable. 26) Lack of recognition of adopted residential design guidelines with regards to separation distance. 27) Increased vehicular movements and pedestrian movements. 28) Policy CS2 states that if the Council does not have a 5-year housing land supply that permission will be granted if the development is in keeping with the scale and character of the settlement. It is considered that the proposal is not in keeping with the immediate settlement profile with regards to mass, scale, overall building height and materials. 29) No public benefit from the development but will harm the Conservation Area. 30) Overdevelopment. Elongated shape will result in principle forward elevation looking over neighbour’s garden and on higher land. Overlooking. 31) Garage will appear like a 1.5 storey building due to higher land. 32) Tugby Settlement Profile (2015) identifies village as being located within the High Leicestershire Landscape Character Area. Low to medium landscape capacity to accommodate development meaning it is unlikely that development can be accommodated without significant degradation to existing landscape character. Outside of defined settlement boundary and elevated. Will cause material and irreversible harm to a previously undeveloped parcel of land that is in an elevated location when compared to surrounding settlement. 33) Garage too close to neighbour’s windows. 34) No heritage assessment, arboricultural report or justification for a dwelling outside of settlement boundary. 35) Vehicles going to proposal will pass directly in front of The Bungalow. Especially the lounge window. Privacy significantly affected. Currently private road. 36) Top of Chapel Lane is narrow and awkward angle. Vehicles have hit front wall at The Bungalow. 37) Disabled and so imperative that immediate easy access to property and to park car is available. 38) The suggested area for building is a small and narrow area of agricultural land bordered by a farm track to one side and a steep bank with public footpath some 2 metres higher and bordered, by what was a verdant, teeming with wildlife and untouched, hedge and tree to the other. The overall size of the planned property in such a narrow strip coupled with the siting of the property into the bank will mean excessive earthworks and retaining walls and the destruction of a previously untouched plot of valuable natural land. The very act of building will require the footpath to be redirected and this coupled with the current requirements for access will mean the track and associated footpath will have to be surfaced with tarmac which is totally inappropriate in such a rural setting. Looks unlikely that a 1 in 12 slope could be achieved for footpath. 39) The Bungalow’s rear kitchen window and door, bathroom windows and rear garden will be unreasonably overlooked. Imposing height compared to single storey bungalow. 40) Not in keeping with architectural vernacular. Does not reflect local traditions. Does not meet the requirement of outstanding or good design as per NPPF because does not reflect Tugby traditions, enhance the area or sit well in landscape. Nor doe it push any boundaries of architecture, or offer an exciting cutting edge building worthy of future conservation nor does it improve the character or quality of the area. 41) Over zealous clearance of site before applications submitted. Tree had large bough removed. 42) Area suffers from flooding. Detailed plans should be submitted showing how rainfall is to be managed. Higher land than surroundings. 43) The NPPF, Core Strategy and Village profile all have policies designed to protect rural villages especially with regard to conservation areas, village envelopes, development in open countryside and development in sustainable locations and although it can be argued that the plan should be allowed due to HDC continually missing targets for building land availability over a 5 year period plus buffer it can not be argued that the plan takes into account local
circumstances or local need especially when considering that in 2001 Tugby had 126 houses, by the 2011 census 138 houses, by the 2015 profile a further 2 houses and since then a development of 10 houses at Manor Farm (net gain 9 houses), 1 on the A47 and identified building land for a potential 9 houses, available within the next 5 years, a total build of 33. This means that Tugby will have increased in size by over 40% in a period of twenty years without any increase in key services. The school is still the same size and now uses a mobile class room to teach two year groups, has no indoor P.E facility and uses a classroom for Lunchtime meals. It can not be argued that the plan brings to market the provision of significant additional affordable housing or securing delivery of appropriate affordable housing in more rural areas or meeting the varied housing needs of the community, or meets local circumstances and local need in light of the executive estate recently finished at Manor Farm providing 9 substantial sized houses. It can not be argued that the plan safeguards the biodiversity or does not impact on the environment of the site or protects the vulnerability to flooding within the village or that the development would reduce the occupiers reliance on the private car as it is not in an accessible location. It cannot be argued that the plan meets the three main tenants of a Sustainable Development. It is not contributing to building a strong responsive and competitive economy. It is not supporting strong vibrant and healthy community in the supply of housing for this and future generations and it is not contributing to the protection or enhancement of the natural environment.
5. Planning Policy Considerations
5.1 Please see above for planning policy considerations that apply to all agenda items.
a) Development Plan
o Harborough District Core Strategy (Adopted November 2011)
5.2 Relevant policies to this application are, CS1, CS2, CS5 and CS11. These are detailed in the policy section at the start of the agenda.
5.3 Policy CS17: Countryside, Rural Centres and Rural Villages is also relevant. This states that new development in Selected Rural Villages will be on a lesser scale than in Rural Centres and that development will be on a scale which reflects the size and character of the village concerned, the level of service provision and will take into account recent development and existing commitments. Rural development will be located and designed in a way that is sensitive to its landscape setting, retaining and where possible, enhancing the distinctive qualities of the landscape character and conserves and, where possible, enhances settlement distinctiveness.
b) Material Planning Considerations
o Supplementary Planning Guidance
5.4 The Supplementary Planning Guidance Note that is relevant to this application is Note 3 Development of single plots, small groups of dwellings and residential development within Conservation Areas.
o The Framework
5.5 The National Planning Policy Framework states that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that development should be approved without delay if they accord with the development plan. It states that where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
5.6 The Framework states that the design of the built environment is of great importance and that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people.
c) Other Relevant Information
o Reason for Committee Decision
5.7 This application is to be determined by Planning Committee as 7 letters of objection from 4 different households have been received a long with an objection from the Parish Council.
6. Assessment
a) Principle of Development 6.1 The application site is outside of the designated Limits to Development. However, at the present time the Council does not have a 5-year land supply so in principle a new residential dwelling in this location could be acceptable, if the proposal was in keeping with the scale and character of the settlement. The NPPF states that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. In addition to this Tugby is a Selected Rural Village and therefore is considered to be an acceptable location for development based on Policies CS2 and CS17 of the Core Strategy as long as the proposal is in keeping with the size and character of the village.
b) Housing Requirement and Housing Land Supply 6.2 The Council presently does not have a 5yr Housing Land Supply. If this application were approved it would provide 1 additional dwelling.
c) Technical Considerations
1. Scale, appearance and landscaping 6.3 The application site extends from the current built form of the village into the countryside and is also within the Conservation Area. Therefore any development needs to respect its edge of village countryside location and the fact it is within the Conservation Area. The site is also constrained by being narrow and due to the significant difference in land levels across the site.
6.4 The proposed dwelling house is 19.1m long and 8.1m high at its highest point. The centre of the dwelling is the widest and tallest part with two wings either side of this that are 6.85m high and 6m high. The principle elevation of the dwelling house faces south west.
Figure 11: Proposed South West Elevation
6.5 The rear of the property faces north east and the land is to be retained by a Gabion retaining structure. Beyond this boundary is countryside.
Figure 12: Proposed North East Elevation
6.6 The north west elevation faces the countryside and the south east elevation shows the side of the proposal seen when it is approached from the access drive, though the detached garage would be seen first but this is not on the plan shown below.
Figure 13: Proposed North West Elevation
Figure 14: Proposed South East Elevation
6.7 Since the previous application the length of the dwelling house has been reduced, though mainly from detaching the garage, the height has been brought down by 0.1m at the highest point and by 0.2m on the rear wing and dormer windows inserted. The siting of the dwelling has been moved to the north west by 6.8m. This gap previously contained the garage and a boot room which has been separated and removed respectively.
6.8 It is not considered that these small changes address the concerns raised during the process of considering the last two planning applications. It is not considered that the length and massing of the property respects the edge of village setting on a site which is currently an area of transition between the built form and the countryside. Though the design of the dwelling house is not generally considered to be bad it is not considered that it is right for this location. It does not respond to the characteristics of the site and it is not considered that it enhances the character of the area. It extends beyond the built form and does not relate to the existing settlement layout.
6.9 Though Bramley Meadow and Highcroft are large detached dwellings they relate significantly better to the existing built form of the village and to Chapel Lane.
6.10 It is also considered that having the principle elevation facing the south west and the detached garage being the first element you view on approaching the development from the south east results in the development not enhancing the area or integrating into the existing built form or character.
6.11 Overall it is considered that the proposed dwelling house does not respect the context of its location and does not enhance or respect the local character of the area, which in addition to being a rural setting or also within the Conservation Area. Contrary to the guidance in the NPPF it is not considered that the proposal takes the opportunities available for improving the character of the area.
2. Impact on the Conservation Area 6.12 Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy states that heritage assets within the District and their setting, will be protected, conserved and enhanced. Paragraph 132 of The Framework states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset great weight should be given to the assets conservation. The more important the asset the
greater the weight should be. Paragraph 135 states that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account.
6.13 The application site is within the Conservation Area. From the south approaching the site The Old Farmhouse and Meadowcroft are historic character properties. However, the three properties nearest to the site are Highcroft, Bramley Meadow and The Bungalow which are modern properties. It is considered that although the proposal would not harm the character of the Conservation Area it would also not enhance it. The nearest designated heritage asset is St Thomas a Becket’s Church but this is of such a distance from the site to conclude that the proposal would not harm the setting of the church.
3. Amenity 6.14 The proposal is situated to the north of Bramley Meadow and is situated parallel with Bramley Meadow’s back garden, though separated by the access track. If the dwelling house is sited as shown, with the land excavated to bring it down to just above the ground level of Bramley Meadow, and with the false windows at first floor facing the garden of Bramley Meadow and the rooflights of Bedroom 2 being at a high level then it is not considered that there will be a direct loss of privacy. The bedroom window of Bedroom 4 is over 21m from the nearest windows of Bramley Meadow and situated at an angle. However, the proposal extends 19.1m along the garden of Bramley Meadow. Having visited the site and seen how close the proposal feels to the neighbouring property it is considered that the proposed dwelling house would result in an unneighbourly relationship. It is considered that there would be a perceived sense of overlooking and a sense of enclosure.
6.15 The next nearest property to the proposal is The Bungalow. It is considered that the dwelling house is sited far enough from The Bungalow’s habitable room windows (more than 35m away) and on the boundary of The Bungalow’s site is their detached garage. There will be an increase in vehicular and pedestrian movements across the front of The Bungalow but it is not considered that this will be significant enough to warrant refusal on amenity grounds.
6.16 With regards to future residential amenity the previous applications proposed having the only kitchen window facing the retaining wall. This scheme proposes a high level window that looks above the top of the retaining wall.
6.17 Due to the impact on Bramley Meadow it is considered that the proposal does not accord with Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy as existing residential amenity is not safeguarded. The proposal also does not accord with the core planning principle in the NPPF that states that there should be a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants.
4. Highways 6.18 The proposed 4-bedroom dwelling should have three off street parking spaces and adequate turning. The Leicestershire County Council 6Cs Design Guide advises that garages should have the following internal dimensions –
•Standard single = 6m x 3m, with minimum door width of 2.3m •Double = 6m x 6m, with minimum door width of 4.2m.
The proposed garage only has an internal length of 5m. Therefore it does not meet the guidance for a proposed garage. This was raised previously but the proposal has not been amended to address this. As the garage can not be counted as a parking space there will need to be space for three cars on the driveway. The guidance
details that parking spaces should be 2.4m x 5.5m. Three spaces could be provided in a row on the proposed driveway but parked the other way round to that shown on the plans. Turning could be tight but it is no longer considered that the proposal would be refusable based on highway grounds and LCC Highways have raised no concerns.
5. Right of Way Diversion The proposal includes a footpath diversion (for which a separate application will need to be made to the Council). Diversion is a separate legislative procedure and can, for example, be done by means of a Town & Country Planning Act Order if diversion is required to enable the development to take place. In this case the proposal is unacceptable for a number of reasons, set out in this report.
d) Sustainable Development 6.19 The Framework identifies three dimensions to sustainable development – economic, social and environmental. Taking each of these in turn the following conclusions can be reached.
o Economic Provides economic development in the building of 1 additional dwelling.
o Social Provides 1 new dwelling, which contributes to housing need to a small degree, but has a detrimental impact on residential amenity.
o Environmental The proposal is considered to have a harmful impact on the surrounding environment.
7. The Planning Balance / Conclusion 7.1 Notwithstanding the lack of 5-year housing supply, the benefit of an additional dwelling house does not outweigh the concerns surrounding the design and size of the dwelling and its resulting impact on the character of the surrounding area, nor of its impact on residential amenity. These adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of a contribution of one dwelling house to the District’s housing need.
Planning Committee Report Applicant: Mr S Johnson
Application Ref: 16/02088/OUT
Location: Church Farm, 10 Gilmorton Road, Ashby Magna
Proposal: Outline application for the erection of up to 8 dwellings (all matters reserved)
Application Validated: 11/01/17
Target Date: 08/03/17
Consultation Expiry Date: 23/02/17
Site Visit Date: 24/01/17
Case Officer: Chris Brown
Recommendation
Planning Permission is REFUSED, for the reasons below;
1) The proposed development, by virtue of its siting, would extend the built form of the village into the open countryside and would detrimentally affect the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore fail to accord with Policies CS11 (b) and (c)(iii) and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy, and paragraphs 17, 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and it is considered that this identified harm is not outweighed by the proposal's benefits.
2) Outside of rural centres and selected rural villages, new development (including residential development) in the countryside and other settlements not identified as selected rural villages will be strictly controlled. The proposal is not for development for agriculture, forestry or another activity appropriately located in the countryside. The proposed new dwellings would be sited in a remote location with poor accessibility to local services, community facilities and public transport. Future occupiers of the development would lack viable transport alternatives and thereby be overly reliant on the use of a private motor vehicle. The proposal would therefore represent an inappropriate and unsustainable form of development that would be contrary to paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies CS5 a), CS9 a), CS11 c) viii) and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy. The identified harm significantly and demonstrably outweighs the proposal’s benefits, and no other material considerations indicate that the policies of the development plan should not prevail.
1. Site & Surroundings
1.1 The site is located to the southern edge of Ashby Magna, forming an area of open land separating the older section of the village from the newer linear development southwards along the west side of Gilmorton Road. The site rises both from
Gilmorton Road to the west, and also from north to south within the site from Church Farm, and is sloping open grassland in appearance with an open metal Dutch barn to the north boundary. The site is bordered by Gilmorton Road to the east, residential development to the south, the farm outbuildings of Church Farm to the north and open countryside to the west. The site is outside of limits to development of Ashby Magna, and not located within a conservation area.
Figure 1: Site Location
Figure 2: View south to the site – existing metal barn to be demolished
Figure 3: view north across the site from existing access
Figure 4: view south to existing Gilmorton Road linear development from the rear of the site
Figure 5: view east to St Mary’s Church
Figure 6: Open countryside to the west of the site
1.2 The site is largely open in appearance, with an agricultural access to the south east corner of the site currently serving the site only. Gilmorton Road links the village to Gilmorton to the south and Lutterworth beyond. The red line site is part of the wider Church Farm site shown in the blue line in Figure 1.
1.3 The site is open in appearance, with no delineation on site to the proposed rear boundary of the site, with the land and levels continuing to the east (Figure 6 above). The site is crossed by two footpaths (Y81 and Y86) both starting at the same point on Gilmorton Road and splitting north west (Y86) and south west (Y81). The site is bordered by residential development to the south (Figure 4 above) and by the existing farm house and farm outbuildings of Church Farm to the north of the site. The site rises from Gilmorton Road, providing views from the site to St Mary’s Church across Gilmorton Road, and further dwellings nearby.
2. Site History
2.1 The Site has no relevant planning history.
3. The Application Submission
a) Summary of Proposals
3.1 The proposal seeks outline planning approval for the erection of up to 8 dwellings, with all matters reserved. An indicative layout of the site has been provided as part of the application, showing one vehicular access from Gilmorton Road, utilising the existing agricultural access to the site, with the access drive then following north and south to the rear of the proposed dwellings, with garages and parking to the rear. The dwellings are proposed to be located to the eastern edge of the site, continuing the linear line of dwellings that continue to the south of the site. The existing footpaths are retained, however are proposed to be amended to be set back from Gilmorton Road to the rear of the site before dispersing north and south west.
3.2 The indicative layout proposes 8 dwellings in a row across the east of the site. The dwellings proposed are a mix of 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings, however no further detail has been provided and remains indicative at this stage. The indicative layout shows 4 terraced dwellings to the northern section of the site, 2 semi detached dwellings to the centre, and 2 detached dwellings to the southern section of the site, split either side of the proposed access. The design of the dwellings however is not given significant material weight and consideration due to the application being an outline application and no elevation or street scene plans provided.
3.3 The proposed site layout shows the removal of the open metal Dutch barn to the north of the site, and the dwellings to be in line with and abut the existing end of row dwelling to the south of the site. This dwelling is a new build dwelling, permitted in 2015 as a continuation of the existing row of dwellings.
Figure 7: Proposed layout
b) Documents submitted
i. Plans
3.4 The application has been accompanied by the following plans –
Proposed layout Location Plan
ii. Supporting Statements
3.5 The application has been accompanied by the following supporting statements –
Planning Statement Ecology Survey (Philip Irving July 2016)
c) Pre-application Engagement
3.6 Prior to submitting the planning application the site has not been subject to a pre- application.
4. Consultations and Representations
4.1 Consultations with technical consultees and the local community were carried out on the application. This occurred on 19th January 2017 and included a site notice put up on 24th January 2017. The consultation period expired on 23rd February 2017.
4.2 Firstly, a summary of the technical consultee responses received is set out below. If you wish to view the comments in full, please go to: www.harborough.gov.uk/planning.
a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees
4.3 Ashby Magna Parish Council No comments received.
LCC Highways 4.4 The Local Highway Authority advice is that, in its view the residual cumulative impacts of development can be mitigated and are not considered severe in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF, subject to the Conditions as outlined in this report.
4.5 Informatives The LHA understands that the Applicant is seeking outline planning permission for the creation for up to 8 dwellings with all matters reserved, including access.
4.6 The LHA has assessed the location of the site; there are no recorded accidents; the speed limit is 30mph; the road is C Class; visibility would appear to be able to be achieved; and the applicant controls sufficient land that a development of some sort should be able to be designed in accordance with current guidelines in this location.
The Highway Authority therefore has no objections in principle to a development of this approximate scale in this location.
4.7 Site Access Details of the access, as well as all other matters, are reserved for later determination, therefore no access details have been assessed. The indicative layout indicates a single driveway with rear parking areas; the LHA would not favour this approach as rear parking where occupants have to walk through gardens tends to lead to on-street parking, where access to the front of the properties is quicker and easier. The LHA respectfully requests that the LPA does not condition the indicative layout, so that access and layout can be determined at reserved matters stage.
4.8 There are two public rights of way that cross the site; these must be taken into account and not impinged in any way without reference to the LHA.
4.9 Conditions 1. All details of the proposed development shall comply with the design standards of the Leicestershire County Council as contained in its current design standards document. Such details must include parking and turning facilities, access widths, gradients, surfacing, signing and lining (including that for cycleways and shared use footway/cycleways) and visibility splays and be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority before development commences. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development and in the interests of highway safety.
2. No development shall commence on the site until such time as a construction traffic/site traffic management plan, including wheel cleansing facilities and vehicle parking facilities, and a timetable for their provision, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable. Reason: To reduce the possibility of deleterious material (mud, stones etc) being deposited in the highway and becoming a hazard to road users, and to ensure that construction traffic/site traffic associated with the development does not lead to on- street parking problems in the area.
LCC Rights of Way Officer 4.10 Public Footpaths Y81 and Y86 cross through the centre of the proposed development. Please find attached an extract from the Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way for your information. (Plan OV-1)
4.11 Conditions As there is a need for detailed discussion on the treatment of the Public Rights of Way I recommend that such provision is dealt with as a reserved matter and that the following condition should be placed on any outline permission granted for the site:
1. No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision of the Public Rights of Way has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Such a scheme shall include provision for the treatment of the Public Rights of Way, their surfacing, width, structures, signing and landscaping. Reason: In the interests of amenity, desirability, safety and security of users of the Public Rights of Way.
LCC Ecology
4.12 The ecology survey (P Irving, July 2016) is satisfactory. No habitats of note were identified, apart from the locally important roadside hedgerow (which nonetheless was not species-rich and would not meet local wildlife site criteria). No habitats that could be used by protected species were identified; the nearby pond has poor great crested newt suitability, and the on-site sheds are unsuitable for bats. No evidence of protected species was found on site.
4.13 No further survey work is required before determination, and I recommend the following conditions:
1. Removal of vegetation and demolition of sheds outside the March-Aug inclusive bird-nesting season, or within 24 hours of the 'all-clear' from an appropriately qualified ecologist following a negative bird-nesting survey.
2. Retention of roadside hedge, or its replacement with a locally native species hedge, and planting of a new locally native hedge along the western boundary of the site; details to be provided postdetermination.
HDC Conservation Officer 4.14 The application site is opposite the Grade 2* Listed St Marys Church, however the site is not within a Conservation Area. The indicative layout shows the 8 dwellings in a linear form continuing the row of existing dwellings facing on to Gilmorton Road. Due to this layout and the size of the dwellings indicated I believe that a development of this nature would not result in harm to the setting of the church and there are no other designated heritage assets in close proximity to the site. Overall the proposals are not considered to be contrary to chapter 12 of the NPPF.
Historic England 4.15 Thank you for your letter of 31 January 2017 regarding the above application for planning permission. On the basis of the information available to date, we do not wish to offer any comments. We suggest that you seek the views of your specialist conservation and archaeological advisers, as relevant.
LCC Archaeology 4.16 No comments received, any comments will be reported.
Seven Trent Water 4.17 I confirm that Severn Trent Water Ltd has NO Objection to the proposal subject to the inclusion of the following condition.
Condition 4.18 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until drainage plans for the disposal of surface water and foul sewage have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use. Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as reduce the risk of creating or exacerbating a flooding problem and to minimise the risk of pollution.
Suggested Informative 4.19 Severn Trent Water advise that although our statutory sewer records do not show any public sewers within the area you have specified, there may be sewers that have been recently adopted under The Transfer Of Sewer Regulations 2011. Public
sewers have statutory protection and may not be built close to, directly over or be diverted without consent and you are advised to contact Severn Trent Water to discuss your proposals. Severn Trent will seek to assist you obtaining a solution which protects both the public sewer and the building.
HDC Environmental Health 4.20 Due to the historic use of the neighbouring buildings as a blacksmith, conditions for a risk based land contamination assessment and completion/verification investigation report are proposed.
b) Local Community
4.21 7 objections received, from 6 households.
4.22 Highways issues raised through representations: Parking – existing is insufficient on Gilmorton Road pushing to on road parking Parking – overspill across Gilmorton Road during village and church events Highways safety – existing dangerous crossing of Gilmorton Road due to vehicle speeds, width and existing parking Highway safety – risk to cyclists with route on national cycle route Unsafe access proposed
4.23 Residential amenity issues raised through representations: Loss of privacy to neighbouring dwellings
4.24 Character and appearance issues raised through representations: Proposed layout with parking to the rear is out of keeping with existing character and appearance
4.25 Policy issues raised through representations: Lack of services and facilities, non conformity with Policy CS17 Outside of limits to development and in open countryside
4.26 Other issues raised through representations: Wildlife impact – existing mud and straw wall to existing barn provides habitat for mason bees
5. Planning Policy Considerations
5.1 Please see above for planning policy considerations that apply to all agenda items.
a) Development Plan
o Harborough District Local Plan
5.2 Relevant Policy of HS/8 – Limits to Development. The site is located outside of limits to development of Ashby Magna.
o Harborough District Core Strategy (Adopted November 2011)
5.3 Relevant policies to this application are, CS1, CS2, CS5, CS11 and CS17. These are detailed in the policy section at the start of the agenda, with the exception of Policy CS17, detailed below.
5.4 Policy CS17 of the Core Strategy sets out the Council’s approach to development in the rural centres, selected rural villages and the countryside. Policy CS17 does not identify Ashby Magna as a Selected Rural Village, based on its lack of any service provision.
5.5 Policy CS17 states:
‘new development in the Countryside and other settlements not identified as selected rural villages will be strictly controlled. Only development required for the purposes of agriculture, woodland management, sport and recreation, local food initiatives, support visits to the District and renewable energy production will be appropriate in the Countryside subject to compliance with other relevant policies in this Strategy’.
b) Material Planning Considerations
o Supplementary Planning Guidance
5.6 The Supplementary Planning Guidance Note that is relevant to this application is Note 3: Development of single plots, small groups of dwellings and residential development in Conservation Areas, in addition to Note 5: Extensions to Dwellings.
c) Other Relevant Information
o Reason for Committee Decision
5.7 This application is to be determined by Planning Committee as the application has received in excess of 5 representations of objection.
6. Assessment
a) Principle of Development 6.1 The site is not identified within CS17 as a Selected Rural Village (having no key services and therefore not considered sustainable), and whilst the settlement of Ashby Magna does have identified Limits to Development, the site is located outside of this. As such the site is considered as countryside in planning terms, with development to be strictly controlled. Previous applications (such as permission for dwellings within the linear development along Gilmorton Road) have been considered by Planning Committee and approved despite being in an unsustainable location and outside of limits to development, however these were individual plots within or on the end of the existing row of dwellings, rather than a larger scale infill of the existing rural gap between the core of the village and the more modern linear development. The principle of development therefore is considered not acceptable.
6.2 For new development to be acceptable, it must be in locations from where future occupiers have a range of travel options to access sufficient numbers of key amenities. The Core Strategy sets this at a relatively low threshold of two amenities. In summary, in this instance there are no key amenities within 800m walking distance of the site, and no key amenities within the village of Ashby Magna.
6.3 The proposed new dwelling would therefore be sited in an isolated location with poor access to key services and infrastructure and would be environmentally unsustainable, on account of its poor location, as future occupiers would be almost entirely reliant on the use of private cars. The proposal would therefore conflict with local and national planning policies which seek to promote sustainable patterns of development and to reduce the need to travel by car.
6.4 Even if future occupiers were keen cyclists and walkers, it would be very difficult to condition use of such modes of transport. The acceptability of the proposal must depend on the site’s location and other material planning considerations. Further, the distance to the closest Selected Rural Villages of Dunton Bassett is considerable (2.2km), both along narrow and undulating rural roads.
6.5 Monitoring work undertaken by the Strategic Planning Team on the implications of Policy CS17 and limiting development outside of Selected Rural Villages has previously been undertaken. This has shown that development in unsustainable villages (non SRVs) has only been allowed for; revised schemes of existing approvals, replacement dwellings, conversions of buildings and agricultural workers dwellings. Only limited open market dwelling have been approved in a non-SRV settlement without or outside of existing Limits to Development since the Core Strategy was adopted in November 2011 and contrary to Policy. Further proposals should not be considered favourably. The approach taken to minimise residential development outside of SRVs is supported through paragraph 30 of the NPPF, which states that ‘local planning authorities should therefore support a pattern of development which…facilities the use of sustainable modes of transport’. A further exception to policy CS17 are proposals seeking to comply with paragraph 55 of the NPPF, where development in the countryside should be allowed providing four key criteria are met. This proposal does not seek approval through this route.
6.6 In addition, development in unsustainable locations can come forward through permitted development where it includes the conversion of an agricultural building. This proposal seeks the erection of 8 dwellings, on a site that significantly contributes towards the rural character of the village, separating the historic core of the village to further linear development to the south of the village.
6.7 In an appeal for 2 dwellings outside of limits to development in Stoughton (reference: APP/F2415/W/15/3014897), a similar size but slightly smaller village than Ashby Magna, the Inspector dismissed the appeal, stating that;
‘Although the site is located close to, and would be well related to Stoughton, the lack of community facilities within the village means that the proposed dwellings would in effect be somewhat remote’,
and concluding;
‘I consider it unlikely that future residents would use sustainable modes to access their day to day needs, being far more likely instead to use private transport to access such services, facilities and employment’.
6.8 A further appeal, for a single dwelling outside of limits to development in Arnesby (reference: APP/F2415/A/14/2228158), a larger village than Ashby Magna, with the provision of a primary school, was also dismissed. Whilst Arnesby also benefits from a restaurant in addition to a primary school, the Inspector stated;
‘restaurant and public house are different land uses and have different characteristics and so their contribution to a rural community is not necessarily like-for-like. In any event, the range of services and facilities available in the village to serve new residential development could not reasonably be described as more than very limited’.
6.9 Further appeal decisions, for single dwellings in Ashby Parva, Claybrooke Parva and Bruntingthorpe are also considered relevant in this respect as the settlements are not identified as Selected Rural Villages, with limited service provision.
6.10 The village of Ashby Magna is situated approx. 2.2km from the nearest sustainable settlement of Dunton Bassett, a selected rural village, and a further distance again to Broughton Astley, the closets Key Centre. The village has no access to any of the six key services identified in policy CS17 as a requirement for a sustainable location, with at least two needed for a SRV. Ashby Magna does not have a bus service running to or from the village, with school bus provision only and the nearest commercial bus stop in Dunton Bassett. Therefore all trips to schools, food shopping, libraries, GPs and post offices as well as wider town centre services will be predominantly made by cars.
b) Housing Requirement and Housing Land Supply 6.11 The Council presently does not have a 5yr Housing Land Supply. If this application were approved it would provide up to 8 additional dwellings.
c) Technical Considerations
1. Scale, appearance and landscaping 6.12 The site is open in character, with land rising from Gilmorton Road to the east up to the site, and the site itself relatively flat and open. The site is bordered on 2 sides by residential development, including Church Farm to the northern boundary, and open countryside to the west.
6.13 The layout proposed, showing retention of the existing hedge to the eastern boundary, albeit with the creation of a vehicular access replacing the existing agricultural access, is considered acceptable at this stage as an outline application. Further, an additional hedge boundary with post and rail fence is proposed to the new western boundary of the site. The indicative layout shows the dwellings fronting Gilmorton Road, with a footpath forward of the dwellings and parking and garages to the rear. The proposed layout of dwellings fronting the road is considered in keeping with the existing linear development south of the site along Gilmorton Road, although contrasts with the larger detached dwellings sited more centrally within the village.
6.14 The erection of dwellings on this site is considered to demonstrably change the existing undeveloped character and appearance of the site. The site is sited centrally within the village, open in nature, with open fields beyond, and with the historic core of the village and listed buildings to both the east and north of the site, the site is considered to significantly contribute to the rural nature of the village.
6.15 In an appeal for 2 dwellings outside of limits to development in Stoughton (reference: APP/F2415/W/15/3014897), a similar sized village to Ashby Magna, the Inspector stated that the single dwelling
‘…would introduce a substantial built form into largely undeveloped green space that, at present, positively contributes to the open, spacious feel….and the landscape setting of the village. This pleasant space, with its open grassed area and vegetation provides an important visual transition between the main built up area and the open landscape beyond. It also visually softens existing development.’
6.16 This appeal is considered relevant to this application, with 8 dwellings a more significant intrusion into an existing green space that provides a rural character to the village, with the current open and undeveloped nature of the site considered to add to the rural character and appearance of the village. This is exaggerated by the presence of two footpaths running across the site from different directions, both to the same point on Gilmorton Road.
6.17 Whilst the existing hedge boundary to the site will be predominantly maintained, the proposed access, together with siting of the proposed dwellings, will change the appearance of the site when viewed from Gilmorton Road and when viewed from the footpaths to the west. The footpaths currently benefit from an open view across the site towards St Mary’s Church and the village when entering the village, and the siting of the dwellings, at a height well above the neighbouring farm outbuildings and with garages and parking access to the rear, will significantly alter this current rural nature and character.
2. Drainage 6.18 No drainage plan has been submitted as part of the application, with the site falling below a 10 dwelling (major application) trigger. The provision of a drainage scheme for the site would be conditioned if approval were recommended with the condition requiring that no development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site has been submitted. The site slopes down from south to north and sits above the highway to the east, with no drainage issues identified through submission documentation or representations raised. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would comply with Core Strategy Policy CS10 and the aims and objectives of the Framework.
3. Ecology 6.19 An Ecology Survey has been submitted in support of the application. The survey concludes that the site has a low capacity to support protected species, with the barn proposed to be demolished not considered suitable for roosting bats, and the pond to the west of the site not considered a suitable habitat for great crested newts. It is considered that the site provides potential foraging habitat for bats together with refuge locations for protected amphibians, with suitable conditions considered adequate to mitigate any impact.
6.20 LCC Ecology confirmed they had no objections to the scheme, as the application site shows no evidence of protected species on the site. Were the application to be approved, LCC Ecology recommend conditions regarding removal of vegetation and demolition of the Dutch barn outside of the bird nesting season and retention or replacement of the roadside hedge to Gilmorton Road (eastern boundary), together with planting of a new hedge to the western boundary.
6.21 Within the representations, a reference is made with regards to the neighbouring agricultural buildings providing a refuge site for mason bees. Mason bees are not a protected species, and the building referred to, with a mud and straw east facing wall, is not proposed for demolition. The metal Dutch barn within the site is proposed for demolition, however the representation received refers to the neighbouring building outside of the red line site. This building is shown on the indicative layout as
proposed for future residential conversion, but this does not form part of this application.
4. Highways 6.22 The applicant has not provided a Transport Statement, with access also a reserved matter and not to be considered with this outline application. The indicative plan shows the access as per the existing aged access into the site, adjacent to the footpaths originating at the site. The indicative plan shows driveways to the rear of the dwellings, with parking and garages providing three off road spaces for each dwelling, considered sufficient for the proposed 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings.
6.23 Public representations have raised highway safety and parking issues related to the site, with existing parked cars along the western boundary of Gilmorton road in front of the existing linear development south of the site, the speed of vehicles using the road, and the high number of cyclists using the route as part of a national cycling route.
6.24 LCC Highways have assessed the application and stated that the impacts of the development are not considered severe. There are no recorded accidents at the site, the site is well within the 30mph limit, visibility is considered sufficient and it is considered that the development could be built within the LCC 6C’s guidelines. LCC do however state that parking to the front of the dwellings would be preferable to the shown rear parking and garages, and request that the indicative layout is not conditioned with development to be in accordance. Conditions regarding design standards for the scheme and a construction traffic management plan are proposed by LCC Highways.
6.25 The site is not located within 800m of a bus stop, does not provide a sufficient choice of transport modes, with any essential journeys from the site to be available by car transport only. Ashby Magna does not have any regular bus service, with travel required approx. 2.2km to Dunton Bassett to reach an hourly service to Leicester and Lutterworth/Rugby. Therefore all trips to schools, food shopping, libraries, GPs and post offices as well as wider town centre services will be predominantly made by cars.
5. Residential Amenity 6.26 The application proposes a mix of 8 terraced, semi-detached and detached dwellings located to the eastern side boundary of the site. The proposed dwellings are shown as a mix of 3 and 4 bedrooms, and assumed at 2 storeys in height. The dwellings will be located adjacent to the end row dwelling on Gilmorton Road (no. 22) with this dwelling being 2.5 storeys in height and with side facing windows, including secondary and obscure glazed windows.
6.27 The application is outline only; however the indicative street scene plan shows 8 dwellings in a row, with no indication of the side elevations of the end plots shown. As such, no negative residential amenity impact resulting within the scheme is considered, with any impact to no.22 considered to be able to be overcome through a suitable reserved matters scheme.
6.28 To the north of the site, Church Farm is located approx. 35m from the nearest proposed dwelling (plot 1), and is separated from any line of sight by the existing farm outbuildings. The outbuildings are agricultural in nature, and not in any habitable use, with a predominant single storey blank elevation facing the site to the south. As currently proposed, no side elevations to the end plots is shown, with a blank
elevation not resulting in any overlooking impact to neighbouring dwellings, and this would be considered under reserved matters.
6.29 The application is an outline application, with all matters reserved. As such, any negative amenity impact could be overcome through reserved matters.
6. Heritage Impact 6.30 The site is not located within or adjoining a conservation area, nor is the site adjacent to any listed buildings. Whilst Church Farm and its outbuildings, including a mud and straw wall, are considered to have some local heritage value, the Farm is not listed. However, the site is located approx. 50m from Grade II* Listed St Mary’s Church to the north east of the site. Due to the close distance, and with the site both raised above Gilmorton Road and with two footpaths converging within it, the site is considered to be within the setting of the Grade II* Listed Church.
6.31 Figure 5 above shows the relationship between footpath Y86 and the Church from the rear boundary of the site, with Church Farm shown on the left (north). The proposal for 8 dwellings on this site is considered to impact on the setting of the Grade II* Listed Church, breaking currently open views from the two footpaths to the Church.
6.32 Due to the siting within the setting of a Grade II* Listed building Historic England have been consulted however do not have any comments on the application. The HDC Conservation Officer has been consulted, stating that:
‘The indicative layout shows the 8 dwellings in a linear form continuing the row of existing dwellings facing on to Gilmorton Road. Due to this layout and the size of the dwellings indicated I believe that a development of this nature would not result in harm to the setting of the church and there are no other designated heritage assets in close proximity to the site. Overall the proposals are not considered to be contrary to chapter 12 of the NPPF’.
6.33 Paragraph 131 of the Framework sets out that in determining planning applications, LPAs should take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets (Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990) and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation. Paragraph 132 of the Framework confirms that the significance of a designated heritage asset, which includes conservation areas, can be harmed or lost through development within its setting.
6.34 The proposed development, of 8 dwellings sited in a linear row across the site, is considered to result in impact on the setting of nearby heritage asset (St Mary’s Church), however is not considered to be harmful to the significance of the setting of the Church. The proposed dwellings, together with their access and curtilage, are considered to impact on the setting of the wider setting of St Mary’s Church, however this level of impact is not considered sufficient to warrant refusal of the application in line with the views expressed by the Conservation Officer and Historic England as above.
6.35 The site does provide a buffer between the village core to the north and the more modern linear development along Gilmorton Road to the south of the site. Furthermore, the site is open in character and appearance, with a rise in levels from Gilmorton Road and two footpaths running through the site, providing a focal point for the village, and view of the surrounding village listed St Mary’s Church.
d) Sustainable Development 6.36 The Framework identifies three dimensions to sustainable development – economic, social and environmental. Taking each of these in turn the following conclusions can be reached;
o Economic Provides economic development in the building of 8 dwellings, including 8 dwellings towards the Council’s 5yr supply, currently a shortfall. The development would also generate New Homes Bonus funding for the Council to invest in facilities and infrastructure in the area.
o Social Provides 8 new dwellings, which modestly contributes to housing need. However, the site can not be accessed by sustainable modes of transport, and is not located within 800m walking distance to any services or facilities.
o Environmental The proposal is not in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and the proposed new dwellings would be sited in an isolated location with poor access to key services and infrastructure and would be environmentally unsustainable, on account of its poor location. The proposal would therefore conflict with local and national planning policies, including CS11 c) viii), CS17 b), CS5 (a), CS9 a), and paragraphs 17, 32 and 34 of the Framework, which seek to promote sustainable patterns of development and to reduce the need to travel by car.
7. The Planning Balance / Conclusion 7.1 The proposal would provide housing development within the District, and would contribute towards the Council’s Housing Land Supply. However, The National Planning Policy Framework provides an undertone of the importance of sustainable housing delivery and this site is not considered to be sustainable development. The site is not located within a sustainable settlement, with poor accessibility to a range of services and facilities.
7.2 The application is considered to harm the character and appearance of the area. The application proposes 8 dwellings set above Gilmorton Road, resulting in a dominant form of development, and infilling a site that contributes to the rural nature and character of the settlement.
7.3 In the absence of a five year housing land supply, paragraph 14 of the Framework is engaged, and therefore permission granted unless the adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. This application is considered to be in an unsustainable location, and result in harm to the character and appearance of the settlement.
Reasons for refusal
1) The proposed development, by virtue of its siting, would extend the built form of the village into the open countryside and would detrimentally affect the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore fail to accord with Policies CS11 (b) and (c)(iii) and CS17 of the Harborough District
Core Strategy, and paragraphs 17, 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and it is considered that this identified harm is not outweighed by the proposal's benefits.
2) Outside of rural centres and selected rural villages, new development (including residential development) in the countryside and other settlements not identified as selected rural villages will be strictly controlled. The proposal is not for development for agriculture, forestry or another activity appropriately located in the countryside. The proposed new dwelling would be sited in a remote location with poor accessibility to local services, community facilities and public transport. Future occupiers of the development would lack viable transport alternatives and thereby be overly reliant on the use of a private motor vehicle. The proposal would therefore represent an inappropriate and unsustainable form of development that would be contrary to paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies CS5 a), CS9 a), CS11 c) viii) and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy. The identified harm significantly and demonstrably outweighs the proposal’s benefits, and no other material considerations indicate that the policies of the development plan should not prevail.
Notes to applicant
1) The decision has been reached taking into account paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Planning Committee Report
Applicant: Mr. Avtar Kareer
Application Ref: 17/00040/FUL
Location: 105A, Lubenham Hill, Market Harborough, Leicestershire
Proposal: Division of existing property to form two separate dwellings (retrospective)
Application Validated: 16/01/2017
Target Date: 13/03/2017
Consultation Expiry Date: 23/02/2017
Site Visit Date: 06/03/2017
Case Officer: Joanne Roebuck
Recommendation
Planning Permission is APPROVED, for the reasons set out below, subject to the condition set out in Appendix A.
The proposal to continue using 105 and 105A as two separate dwellings has no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area, the setting of the nearby listed buildings, highway safety or the amenities of occupiers of adjoining properties. On balance therefore it is considered that the proposed development satisfactorily complies with the Framework and relevant policies in the development plan and there are no material planning considerations sufficient to challenge the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
1. Site & Surroundings
1.1 The application site is a former large, traditionally constructed detached house within substantial grounds at the top of Lubenham Hill on the western edge of Market Harborough.
1.2 Established dwellings stand to the east and west of the site, with a new development of houses in course of erection to the north on the opposite side of Lubenham Hill. No.s 111 and 113 Lubenham Hill to the west of the property are Grade II Listed Buildings.
Figure 1: Site Location
Figure 2: View of Front of Property
Figure 3: View of Rear of Property
2. Site History
2.1 17/00010/COUS - Unauthorised change of use of 105 Lubenham Hill into two separate dwellings (now 105 and 105a).
2.2 PREAPP/16/00220 – Erection of Two Dwellings. Acceptable in principle but advised consideration be given to scale and massing, impact on trees, nearby listed buildings, and amenities of neighbours. Advised to discuss access with Highway Authority. 30/11/2016
3. The Application Submission
a) Summary of Proposals
3.1 The application is retrospective and seeks to regularise the unauthorised division of the dwelling into two separate dwellings.
3.2 The original house has historically been subdivided into two dwellings and lived in by two brothers. Recent pre-application advice was given in respect of erecting two dwellings on the land at the bottom of the garden; this land has been omitted from the current application site, presumably to facilitate a future intention to apply for planning permission for residential development.
3.3 One of the separate dwellings has recently been sold, bringing to light the unauthorised nature of the subdivided dwelling. This application seeks to regularise the existing situation, albeit excluding part of the rear gardens to both properties, and land to the east of No.105 which is apparently being retained as access to the land at the rear.
Figure 4: Site Plan 105 Lubenham Hill
Figure 5: Floor Plan 105A Lubenham Hill
b) Documents submitted
i. Plans
3.5 The application has been accompanied by the following plans:
1:500 Site Location Plan 1:500 Site Plans for 105 and 105A Lubenham Hill Floor plans of 105 and 105A Lubenham Hill
C) Pre-application Engagement
3.6 No pre-application engagement was carried out prior to submission.
4. Consultations and Representations
4.1 Consultations with technical consultees and the local community were carried out for the application. This occurred on 23rd January 2017 and included a site notice put up on the 25th January 2017 and an advertisement in the Harborough Mail on 2nd February. This initial consultation period expired on 23rd February 2017.
4.2 Firstly, a summary of the technical consultee responses received is set out below. If you wish to view the comments in full, please go to: www.harborough.gov.uk/planning.
a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees
4.3 Market Harborough Civic Society
No comments.
4.4 Leicestershire County Council (Highways)
Refers to Standing Advice.
b) Local Community
4.5 Comments have been received from two neighbouring properties raising the following concerns:
Loss of trees and shrubs which have already been cleared from the part of the garden excluded from the application site and resulted in loss of privacy to neighbours on Riley Close. The property was divided, marketed and one already sold before the application was submitted. No objection that the property has been divided in two but concerned about an additional vehicular access from Lubenham Hill and that land at the rear of Riley Close has been retained...clearly for a future development. When that future application is made I sincerely hope that I/we will not be consulted in retrospect.
5. Planning Policy Considerations
5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications for development be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
5.2 Unless otherwise stated, an explanation of the development plan policies, material planning considerations, and other documents referred to can be found at the beginning of the Agenda under “All Agenda Items Common Planning Policy”.
a) Development Plan
5.3 The current Local Development Plan consists of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2006-2028 (adopted November 2011) and saved policies of the Harborough District Local Plan (adopted 2001).
o Harborough District Core Strategy (Adopted November 2011)
5.4 Relevant policies to this application are:
CS11 – Promoting Design and Built Heritage
b) Material Planning Considerations
5.5 The following material planning considerations are relevant to this application:
The National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework/NPPF), particularly Para.14 (presumption in favour of development), Para.17 (Core Planning Principles) and Section 7 (Requiring Good Design).
National Planning Practice Guidance
c) Other Relevant Information
Reason for Committee Decision
5.6 The application is to be determined by Planning Committee because an officer has an interest in the property. 6. Assessment
a) Principle of Development
6.1 The change of use in principle is acceptable as the application site is within an established residential area in a sustainable location on the edge of Market Harborough.
b) Technical Considerations
1. Design and Visual Amenity
6.2 No physical alterations to the property are proposed so the scheme does not adversely affect the character and appearance of the locality. The two dwellings are not readily visible from Lubenham Hill anyway because of a long setback and established trees around the boundaries.
6.3 The change of use does not have an adverse impact on the setting of the listed buildings to the west.
2. Residential Amenity
6.4 The use as two separate dwellings has been in existence for some time with no known adverse impacts on the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties. The nature of the use in relation to the neighbouring dwellings is the same, and the size of each plot is so large and distant from neighbouring dwellings that the slight intensification of use has no implications for the amenities of occupiers of those dwellings.
3. Highways
6.5 The two dwellings share an access off Lubenham Hill but enjoy the benefit of separate drives within their own front gardens. They therefore have adequate parking
space within each curtilage. The access off Lubenham Hill has been modified with the insertion of a new roundabout in relation to the new development opposite, resulting in a separate spur serving a number of houses, including the application premises. This spur provides safe access and therefore there are no issues of highway safety arising from the application.
3. Other Matters
6.6 A number of trees along the original eastern boundary of the site are protected by a tree preservation order. These trees are outside the application site and unaffected by the proposal. They may be affected by any subsequent application for development at the rear of the site but this would need to be addressed independently should such an application be forthcoming.
6.7 The other matters raised by the neighbours in respect of the potential future development at the rear of the site are not relevant to the consideration of this application.
6.8 On the basis of the above the proposal satisfactorily accords with the provisions of the Framework and Harborough Core Strategy Policy CS11.
7. The Planning Balance / Conclusion
7.1 The proposal to continue using 105 and 105A as two separate dwellings has no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area, the setting of the nearby listed buildings, highway safety or the amenities of occupiers of adjoining properties. On balance therefore it is considered that the proposed development satisfactorily complies with the Framework and relevant policies in the development plan and there are no material planning considerations sufficient to challenge the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
7.2 It is therefore recommended that the application is approved subject to the condition in Appendix A.
APPENDIX A – Planning Conditions
8. Planning Conditions 8.1 1) Approved Plans The change of use hereby permitted shall relate to the land shown outlined in red on the following approved plans:
1:500 Site Location Plan (Drawing No. 16/007.10) 1:500 Site Plan for 105 Lubenham Hill (Drawing No. 16/007.12) 1:500 Site Plan for 105A Lubenham Hill (Drawing No. 16/007.11)
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt.