APPENDIX 1 HINCKLEY AND BOSWORTH SITE ALLOCATIONS AND GENERIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROL POLICIES LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL RESPONSE KEY COMMENTS Key comments are set out below. These comments relate to the possible soundness of the document, and should be taken into account by the Borough Council in preparing the Submission Draft.

Site Location Proposed Comments Reference Allocation GENERAL COMMENTS Gypsy and The Borough Council is required by Section 225 of the Housing Act 2004 to Traveller Site assess the needs of Gypsies and Travellers within their area through a Allocations Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA). The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Circular 01/06 “Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites” require that these figures be set out in the Regional Plan at a local planning authority level, to be delivered through the LDF. Circular 01/06 has a number of intentions, including: • To create and support sustainable, respectful, and inclusive communities where gypsies and travellers have fair access to suitable accommodation, education, health and welfare provision; where there is mutual respect and consideration between all communities for the rights and responsibilities of each community and individual; and where there is respect between individuals and communities towards the environments in which they live and work; • To reduce the number of unauthorised encampments and developments and the conflict and controversy they cause and to make enforcement more effective where local authorities have complied with the guidance in this Circular; • To increase significantly the number of gypsy and traveller sites in appropriate locations with planning permission in order to address under- provision over the next 3 – 5 years. 1 Site Location Proposed Comments Reference Allocation There are two issues to consider in the Allocations document: The overall provision of pitches; The suitability of the site allocations. Overall Provision of Pitches Since publication of the Allocations document, the Regional Plan has been published and sets out a lower numerical requirement than the previous version. It takes account of the recommendations of an assessment of the need for Gypsy and Traveller sites in Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland, carried out in 2007 in setting out the minimum additional pitch requirements of 26 residential pitches, 5 transit pitches and 2 plots for travelling showpeople in the Borough over a 5 year time span to 2012. Given the unsuitability of many of the sites proposed (see below), the Borough Council should allocate a smaller number of more suitable pitches in line with the Regional Plan, and reassess the additional need beyond 2012. Suitability of the Site Allocations. In terms of the location of the sites, Circular 01/2006 states that sites in or near existing settlements with good access to local services should be considered first and that sites should be assessed on issues of social, environmental and economic sustainability. As well as more detailed access and facilities criteria, the Hinckley and Bosworth Core Strategy Submission Draft Policy 18: Provision of Gypsy and Traveller Sites sets out further locational guidance. Sites should be located within or adjacent to Hinckley, Burbage, Barwell, Earl Shilton, Key Rural Centres or Rural Villages. If sites are not in or adjacent to these settlements they should be within a reasonable distance (3 to 5 miles) of the necessary services and facilities. In commenting on the suitability of pitches regard has been had to relevant guidance and an assessment of highways and transportation issues. Comments on individual sites are set out below. A GREEN / AMBER / RED classification has been used to classify the suitability of the sites. 2 Site Location Proposed Comments Reference Allocation • GREEN sites are consistent with guidance on Gypsy and Traveller site provision, and to have no highway problems. • AMBER sites are partially suitable, and have some highway problems which can be overcome. • RED sites are unsuitable and have serious highway problems. Transit Sites The preferred option, HIN84, scored AMBER. Residential Sites Of the preferred options only one site (existing), of one pitch, CAD02, scores GREEN; 7 sites consisting of 33 pitches score AMBER or RED. The RED sites are considered to be unsuitable and are therefore opposed by the County Council. The AMBER sites are also opposed pending further work to overcome the problems identified.

PLACE SPECIFIC COMMENTS URBAN AREAS HIN06 Land off Nutts Residential Allocation of this site would be contrary to Highway Authority access to highway Lane, adjacent to (35 dwellings) network policy as contained in ‘Htd’. There is no vehicular access to the county RED AS289 highway (HIN02 would need to be developed also). Footway and cycleway links Hinckley would be required. HIN84 Land off the A5 Gypsy and With some work acceptable access could be achieved to adjacent county roads. opposite Lime Traveller Transit However, the site would impact on the A5, which is heavily trafficked and has a AMBER Kiln Site poor accident record. The Highways Agency, which is responsible for this road, Hinckley (up to 10 caravans) may therefore raise objections.

This site is currently occupied by a gypsy family who have submitted an application for 5 residential pitches for use by their own extended family. For this purpose the site is well located and deliverable. The site is located within or 3 Site Location Proposed Comments Reference Allocation adjacent to the settlement boundary of Hinckley and has good road links which is in line with Policy 18 of the Core Strategy, It also fulfils one of the recommendations of the GTAA in providing an extension to existing site provision. However, the proposal for a transit site here is not deliverable, as it is not supported by the site owner who is currently resident on the land. It is suggested that this site could meet an identified need for a transit site in the south of the Borough. However, the County Council preference based on national guidance and consultations with the travelling community is for an allocation away from residential housing. This is because pitches on transit sites change hands frequently and commercial activity is more likely, resulting in potential disturbance. As the site owner does not wish to develop a transit site the allocation does not comply with paragraph 33 of Circular 01/06.

RURAL AREAS Housing in Rural Areas In commenting on Hinckley and Bosworth’s Core Strategy, the County Council expressed reservations about the amount of new housing proposed for rural areas. This strategy has been carried over into the Allocations DPD, with 885 additional houses being proposed in Key Rural Centres and Rural Villages. Strong concerns about this approach therefore remain and the County Council continues to oppose the excessive provision of houses in rural areas. Further work on the sustainability of the Rural Villages in transportation terms has been undertaken and it is considered that none of them is a sustainable location for the proposed housing development. This is because they have a general lack of facilities, they are not well served by public transport and they are remote from the Principal Urban Area and/or Sub-Regional Centres. Therefore, sites should not be allocated for housing development in Rural Villages. Some 140 dwellings are allocated in the Rural Villages. Because the document allocates more housing than is required in the Regional Plan, the County Council would be justified in seeking a reduction to or removal of the allocations in the following settlements:

Congerstone

4 Site Location Proposed Comments Reference Allocation Higham on the Hill Nailstone Sheepy Magna Stanton Under Bardon Twycross Witherley

The Key Rural Centres of Bagworth and Thornton have also been identified as being unsustainable on transport grounds. However, there are other good reasons why some additional housing may be acceptable. They are identified as Priority Neighbourhoods in Leicestershire’s Sustainable Community Strategy and there is work on-going in the County Council to being forward infrastructure and service improvements. However, for the new housing to be acceptable, it must support the strategy of maintaining and enhancing facilities in these settlements through a robust developer contributions policy. Additional services would need to be provided upfront or at the same time as new housing is built, as once people have established travel habits it is more difficult to influence then to make them more sustainable. GRO28 Land at Anstey Gypsy and Not acceptable in principle on highway grounds There are highways and Lane Traveller transportation concerns. It would be contrary to highway development control RED Groby Residential Site policies, in that access would be from an unlit length of road that lacks footways (5 pitches) and it is not in a location that could be consider to be sustainable (access to facilities in Groby would require pedestrians to cross the heavily trafficked A50).

This site is undeliverable because it is owned by the parish council which has indicated that it has no intention of developing the site. As a residential site it is contrary to part of Policy 18 of the Core Strategy being outside the settlement boundary. Paragraph 33 of Circular 01/06 states that Local planning authorities will need to demonstrate that sites are suitable, and that there is a realistic likelihood that specific sites allocated in DPDs will be made available for that purpose. DPDs will need to explain how the land required will be made available for a gypsy and traveller site, and timescales for provision. The site is bounded on one side by a public footpath. 5 Site Location Proposed Comments Reference Allocation RAT20 Ben’s Hut Gypsy and There are highways and transportation concerns. However, given that the site Desford Lane Traveller has a current planning consent for use as a gypsy and traveller site its expansion AMBER / Ratby Residential Site may prove less easy to resist if mitigation measures are proposed to address RED (4 pitch extension existing access inadequacies. to existing site) This site has been unoccupied for 12 months as the previous owner sold the land and evicted all the families. There is no indication that the new owner wishes to continue its use or extend it as a Traveller site so this may not be deliverable so Paragraph 33 of circular 01/06 has not been complied with. The loss of this site contributes to the overall need and serves as a reminder that large privately owned sites can close at any time; small family sites and local authority owned sites are more sustainable. The site is also outside the settlement boundary and is therefore not fully compliant with Policy 18 of the Core Strategy although it is close to both Desford and Ratby. MARK02 Land off Residential Allocation of this site would be contrary to Highway Authority development Pinewood Drive (15 additional control and access to highway network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. The site is RED Markfield dwellings to extend poorly located for access to services and facilities and offers no choice for elderly person’s alternative modes of transportation. accommodation) The original retirement village failed because the developer went bankrupt after building out the bungalows, leaving residents without any support services. Because the site is some distance from the facilities in Markfield itself, an extension would not be sustainable without a managing agent for the existing retirement housing. MARK20 Land south of Gypsy and Not acceptable in principle on highway grounds There are highways and Copt Oak Road Traveller transportation concerns. It would be contrary to highway development control RED / Markfield Residential Site policies in that it would introduce additional turning movements on to a Class II, AMBER (1 pitch extension unlit, derestricted route that lacks footways. The site is also in an unsustainable to existing site) location

As this site already exists without planning permission it was included as part of the need identified in the GTAA and one of the recommendations in the GTAA was to give permission to such long established sites. The GTAA also 6 Site Location Proposed Comments Reference Allocation recommends some small extensions to family sites where practical. Whilst the site is not directly adjacent to the settlement boundary it does meet an immediate need as advised in Paragraph 54 of Circular 01/06. Sites on the outskirts of built-up areas may be appropriate. Sites may also be found in rural or semi-rural settings. Rural settings, where not subject to special planning constraints, are acceptable in principle. In assessing the suitability of such sites, local authorities should be realistic about the availability, or likely availability, of alternatives to the car in accessing local services. Sites should respect the scale of, and not dominate the nearest settled community. They should also avoid placing an undue pressure on the local infrastructure. THO10 Reservoir Road Gypsy and Not acceptable in principle on highway grounds There are highways and Thornton Traveller transportation concerns. It would be contrary to highway development control RED Residential Site policies in that Thornton is not a sustainable location and this site would take (10 pitches) access from an unlit, derestricted length of road.

As the site is some way outside the settlement boundary its use as a residential site would be contrary to Policy 18 and paragraph 65 of Circular 01/06. In deciding where to provide for gypsy and traveller sites, local planning authorities should first consider locations in or near existing settlements with access to local services, e.g. shops, doctors and schools. All sites considered as options for a site allocations DPD must have their social, environmental and economic impacts assessed in accordance with the requirements of sustainability appraisal. BARL10 Land to the north Employment Allocation of this site would be contrary to Highway Authority development of Barton Road control and access to highway network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. The RED Barlestone proposal is likely to lead to an increase of vehicles turning onto and off the A447 at the Toll Gate crossroad junction. Visibility will also be restricted by existing mature hedgerow, which would be retained. BARL16 Land adjacent to Gypsy and This is an existing gypsy and traveller site, and there are no known highway Garlands Lane Traveller issues with it. However, the proposed allocation would give a potential 50% AMBER Barlestone Residential Site increase in size and the additional associated traffic movement would be of (5 pitch extension concern. In the circumstances the allocation may be difficult to resist. to existing site) The GTAA recommends extensions to some of the smaller family sites but as 7 Site Location Proposed Comments Reference Allocation this site already has 10 pitches it is questionable whether this qualifies. The site is not within or adjacent to any settlement boundary and would require a significant upgrade to the highway access MKBOS17 Extension to Employment Allocation of this site would be contrary to Highway Authority development Industrial Estate, control and access to highway network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. RED Station Road Improvements to access required but may not be possible to deliver. NEW01b Land RO Desford Residential Allocation of this site would be contrary to Highway Authority development Road (98 dwellings) control and access to highway network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. The RED Newbold Verdon access to this site would be via a track opposite Wraske Farm, which lacks adequate width to enable an appropriate form of access to be provided NEW12 Land west of Gypsy and Not acceptable in principle on highway grounds. It would be contrary to highway Kirby Lane Traveller development control policies in that it would introduce additional traffic and RED Newbold Verdon Residential Site pedestrian movements on to an unlit section of road that has no footways and in (4 pitches) most places lacks adequate width for two vehicles to pass one another.

This site is too far from the village to promote good community cohesion and does not comply fully with either Policy 18 of the Core Strategy or paragraph 65 of Circular 01/06. In deciding where to provide for gypsy and traveller sites, local planning authorities should first consider locations in or near existing settlements with access to local services, e.g. shops, doctors and schools. All sites considered as options for a site allocations DPD must have their social, environmental and economic impacts assessed in accordance with the requirements of sustainability appraisal. The site may not be deliverable as the site owner has indicated he has no intention of developing the site and therefore paragraph 33 of circular 01/06 also may apply. STG02a / b Extra Care Centre Residential A planning application was submitted to the Borough Council in May 2007 Stoke Golding (Elderly persons relating to 127 dwellings for (essential) retirement/sheltered dwellings and AMBER accommodation) associated facilities. The County Council recommended strategic policy concerns on the basis that the development was largely new dwellings, rather than exceptional type of units. The application was eventually withdrawn From an adult social care perspective the site is in the wrong location for extra care housing. It is relatively isolated and too far from local facilities (shops, banks, PO, etc). This would undermine people's independence and also mean it 8 Site Location Proposed Comments Reference Allocation is unlikely to attract grant for affordable housing. There have been no discussions involving County Council regarding the provision of care or support on this site for a long time. The County Council therefore has reservations regarding the suitability of this site for extra care housing. From a highways point of view, however, the allocation is acceptable in principle. Satisfies development control and access to highway network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. STG15 Land off Stoke Gypsy and Not acceptable in principle on highway grounds. It would be contrary to highway Lans and Higham Traveller development control policies in that it would introduce additional turning RED Fields Lane Residential Site movements on to an unlit, derestricted route that lacks footways. Stoke Golding (extension of existing site by 4 As this site already exists with planning permission the GTAA recommends pitches) some small extensions to family sites where practical. The permission was granted to meet the need of the current occupants and is personal to them. The site is well outside the settlement boundary with poor access. Paragraph 65 of Circular 01/06 states that local planning authorities should first consider locations in or near to existing settlements with access to local shops and services. HIG11 North of A5 Gypsy and The site would impact on the A5, which is heavily trafficked and has a poor Higham on the Traveller accident record. The Highways Agency, which is responsible for this road, may AMBER Hill Residential Site therefore raise objections. (extension of existing site by 1 As this site already exists with planning permission the GTAA recommends pitch) some small extensions to family sites where practical. The permission was granted recently on appeal to meet the need of the current occupants. The site is well outside the settlement boundary with poor access, Paragraph 65 of Circular 01/06 states that local planning authorities should first consider locations in or near to existing settlements with access to local shops and services. STA09 Land off Thornton Gypsy and Allocation of this site would be contrary to Highway Authority development Lane Traveller control and access to highway network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. RED / Stanton Under Residential Site AMBER Bardon (4 pitches) This is suitable for either a transit or residential site. As it is owned by the Borough Council, it would be deliverable and could be socially rented paragraph 3.7 of the CLG good practice guide for designing Gypsy & Travellers Sites 9 Site Location Proposed Comments Reference Allocation supports this: Where possible, sites should be developed near to housing for the settled community as part of mainstream residential developments. As one way of helping to address shortages of site provision local authorities and registered social landlords can consider the feasibility and scope for providing a site for Gypsies and Travellers within their negotiations to provide affordable housing as part of significant new build developments. Even where smaller scale developments are planned they could consider including a small scale site of three to four pitches which are known to work well for single extended families. CAD02 Land off Gypsy and Acceptable in principle on highway grounds. Although not ideal, given that the site is Bosworth Road Traveller in existing use and no intensification of use is proposed, there are no highways GREEN Cadeby Residential Site and transportation objections to this site. (1 pitch for continued use) The reasons given by the Borough Council for allocating this site are supported

10 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS The additional comments set out in this appendix include: • helpful comments to improve the document by, for example, correcting matters of fact or adding to the information contained in the document; • comments relating to allocations of County Council land, mainly corrections to boundaries. A full schedule of County Council property in Hinckley and Bosworth will be provided, along with details of the correct boundaries; • highways and transport comments relating to smaller allocations where there are highway concerns; • a number of allocations are acceptable in principle but there may still be a need for highway works to ensure that the development can be satisfactorily accessed; • other site specific comments. Site Location Proposed Comments Reference Allocation

Urban Areas

Hinckley HIN02 Land at, and rear Residential Acceptable in principle. Satisfies development control and access to highway of, Netherfield (51 dwellings) network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. Possible requirement to contribute House towards the provision/improvement of Highway and Transportation infrastructure Hinckley in the vicinity to mitigate against the impact of developing this site.

HIN03 Land off Nutts Residential Acceptable in principle. Satisfies development control and access to highway Lane (66 dwellings) network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. Possible requirement to contribute Hinckley towards the provision/improvement of Highway and Transportation infrastructure in the vicinity to mitigate against the impact of developing this site.

HIN04 Former Residential Acceptable in principle. Satisfies development control and access to highway Greyhound (64 dwellings) network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. Possible requirement to contribute stadium towards the provision/improvement of Highway and Transportation infrastructure Hinckley in the vicinity to mitigate against the impact of developing this site.

11 Site Location Proposed Comments Reference Allocation HIN05 Land at 390 Residential Acceptable in principle. Satisfies development control and access to highway Coventry Road (14 dwellings) network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. Possible requirement to contribute Hinckley towards the provision/improvement of Highway and Transportation infrastructure in the vicinity to mitigate against the impact of developing this site. HIN07 18 Wood Street, Residential Allocation of this site would be contrary to Highway Authority access to highway Hinckley (known (2 dwellings) network policy as contained in ‘Htd’. Visibility is restricted to the west due to the as ELS factory building (No.18). If proposals were put forward for wholesale redevelopment, north of Wood St) including demolition, it may be possible for satisfactory access to be achieved. Hinckley HIN08 Factory on Residential Allocation of this site would be contrary to Highway Authority development Parsons Lane, (9 dwellings) control and access to highway network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. The site Hinckley (known does not abut an adopted highway and the off-site highway standard is poor. as ELS factory, east of Parsons Lane) Hinckley HIN10 Hinckley AAP Residential Acceptable in principle. Satisfies development control and access to highway site: land north of (28 dwellings) network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. Possible requirement to contribute Mount Road towards the provision/improvement of Highway and Transportation infrastructure Hinckley in the vicinity to mitigate against the impact of developing this site. HIN11 Hinckley AAP Residential / mixed Acceptable in principle. Satisfies development control and access to highway site: railway use network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. Possible requirement to contribute station, Southfield (24 dwellings) towards the provision/improvement of Highway and Transportation infrastructure Road in the vicinity to mitigate against the impact of developing this site. Hinckley HIN12 Hinckley AAP Residential Acceptable in principle. Satisfies development control and access to highway site: Rugby Road (34 dwellings) network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. Possible requirement to contribute / Hawley Road towards the provision/improvement of Highway and Transportation infrastructure Hinckley in the vicinity to mitigate against the impact of developing this site.

HIN13 Land rear of 47 Residential Allocation of this site would be contrary to Highway Authority development and 49 Clarendon (1 dwelling) control and access to highway network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. Road Improvements to access required but may not be possible to deliver. Hinckley 12 Site Location Proposed Comments Reference Allocation HIN14 Hinckley AAP Residential / mixed Acceptable in principle. Satisfies development control and access to highway site: bus station use network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. Possible requirement to contribute Hinckley (19 dwellings) towards the provision/improvement of Highway and Transportation infrastructure in the vicinity to mitigate against the impact of developing this site. HIN16 Hinckley AAP Residential and Acceptable in principle. Satisfies development control and access to highway site: Leisure mixed use network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. Possible requirement to contribute Centre (55 dwellings) towards the provision/improvement of Highway and Transportation infrastructure Hinckley in the vicinity to mitigate against the impact of developing this site. HIN17 Hinckley AAP Residential and Acceptable in principle. Satisfies development control and access to highway site: Atkins mixed use network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. Possible requirement to contribute factory (5 dwellings) towards the provision/improvement of Highway and Transportation infrastructure Hinckley in the vicinity to mitigate against the impact of developing this site. HIN18 Hinckley AAP Residential and Acceptable in principle. Satisfies development control and access to highway site: Stockwell mixed use network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. Detailed consideration of H&T issues will Head / Concordia (51 dwellings) be required at a later stage including impact on junctions. Theatre Hinckley HIN21 Hinckley Boys Residential Acceptable in principle. Satisfies development control and access to highway Club, Stoke Road (48 dwellings) network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. Possible requirement to contribute Hinckley towards the provision/improvement of Highway and Transportation infrastructure in the vicinity to mitigate against the impact of developing this site.

HIN27 New Street car Residential Acceptable in principle. Satisfies development control and access to highway park (1 dwelling) network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. The principle / effect of loss of off-street Hinckley parking spaces to be considered further. HIN28 Hinckley AAP Residential Acceptable in principle. Satisfies development control and access to highway site: North (28 dwellings) network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. Possible requirement to contribute Warwickshire and towards the provision/improvement of Highway and Transportation infrastructure Hinckley college in the vicinity to mitigate against the impact of developing this site. sites Hinckley

13 Site Location Proposed Comments Reference Allocation HIN38 Transco HQ / Mixed Employment Acceptable in principle. Satisfies development control and access to highway Jarvis Porter, network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. Possible requirement to contribute Coventry Road towards the provision/improvement of Highway and Transportation infrastructure Hinckley in the vicinity to mitigate against the impact of developing this site. TIA to be carried out.

HIN39 Land at The Allotments Acceptable in principle. Satisfies development control and access to highway Paddock, network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. Some car parking may be required within Paddock Way the site. Hinckley HIN40 Land adjacent to Allotments Acceptable in principle. Satisfies development control and access to highway Swallows Green network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. Car parking should be provided within the Hinckley site.

HIN42 Area of mixed Residential and Acceptable in principle. Satisfies development control and access to highway uses, Upper Bond employment network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. Possible requirement to contribute Street (61 dwellings) towards the provision/improvement of Highway and Transportation infrastructure Hinckley in the vicinity to mitigate against the impact of developing this site. HIN65 Westfield Primary This site contains both Westfield Infant and Junior Schools. School Hinckley HINH87 Clarendon Park A small area of land on the southern boundary should be included in the Hinckley Community Facility designation. HIN88 Battling Brook The Staff House should be included in the Community facility designation Primary School Hinckley HIN94 John Cleveland Part of John Cleveland College falls within the Biodiversity Improvement Area. College Clarification needed on what implications this may have for the County Council. Hinckley HIN97 St Peter’s Primary The playing field should be included in the Community Facility designation School Hinckley St Mary’s Primary School is omitted from Community Facility designation

14 Site Location Proposed Comments Reference Allocation St Peter’s Catholic School Playing Field is omitted from Community Facility

designation

Earl Shilton EAR01 Alexander Residential Allocation of this site would be contrary to Highway Authority access to highway Avenue (6 dwellings) network policy as contained in ‘Htd’. The access is narrow and visibility Earl Shilton restricted. It could be improved with third party land. EAR02 Garages at Keats Residential Allocation of this site would be contrary to Highway Authority access to highway Lane (1 dwelling) network policy as contained in ‘Htd’. The access has severely restricted visibility Earl Shilton to and from emerging vehicles in a westerly direction.

Barwell BARW01 Land on Hazel Residential Acceptable in principle. Satisfies development control and access to highway Way (36 dwellings) network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. Possible requirement to contribute Barwell towards the provision/improvement of Highway and Transportation infrastructure in the vicinity to mitigate against the impact of developing this site. BARW02 Land east of 16 Residential Acceptable in principle. Satisfies development control and access to highway Elwell Avenue (1 dwelling) network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. Bus stop may need relocating. Barwell BAR27 Barwell Junior Barwell Community Centre currently under construction at the rear is omitted School from the Community Facility designation Barwell Barwell Infant School is omitted from Community Facility designation

Burbage BUR29 Sketchley Hill The Staff House should be included in the Community facility designation Primary School Burbage BUR30 Land rear of 99- Residential Allocation of this site would be contrary to Highway Authority development 107 Lutterworth (4 dwellings) control and access to highway network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. Road Improvements to access required but may not be possible to deliver. Burbage

15 Site Location Proposed Comments Reference Allocation BUR31 32 Lychgate Lane Residential Allocation of this site would be contrary to Highway Authority access to highway Burbage (2 dwellings) network policy as contained in ‘Htd’. The access has severely restricted visibility to and from emerging vehicles.

Groby GRO21 Land to the west Residential Acceptable in principle. Satisfies development control and access to highway of Sacheverell (45 dwellings) network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. Traffic impact will need to be considered Way at the detailed stage. If capacity is a problem a reduced scheme would be Groby suggested by the HA.

Ratby RAT01 Land at Gearys Residential Acceptable in principle. Satisfies development control and access to highway Bakery (19 dwellings) network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. Demolition of existing cottage and shop Ratby (No.28) necessary to facilitate an acceptable form of access. RAT16 South of Markfield Allotments Allocation of this site would be contrary to Highway Authority development Road control and access to highway network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. Vehicle Ratby access and parking would need to be provided, visibility improved and footways provided but this may not be possible to deliver. RAT18 Ratby Primary The Staff House and the school playing field south of Burroughs Road should be School included in Community Facility designation Ratby

Markfield MARK03 Land at the Residential An access which meets HA standards would be difficult to achieve. However, George Inn, Main (9 dwellings) given brownfield nature of site a centrally located access with improved visibility Street may mitigate against the impact of the proposed scale of development Markfield MARK04 Land at Miners Residential An access which meets HA standards may be difficult to achieve. Visibility is Welfare Institute, (2 dwellings) restricted by existing buildings. If proposals were put forward for wholesale Main Street redevelopment, including demolition, it may be possible for satisfactory access to Markfield be achieved. MARK06 Land at Forest Residential Allocation of this site would be contrary to Highway Authority development Road (1 dwelling) control and access to highway network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. The 16 Site Location Proposed Comments Reference Allocation Markfield access has severely restricted visibility to and from emerging vehicles in an easterly direction. MARK08 Land off Hill Lane Employment land Allocation of this site would be contrary to Highway Authority development Markfield control and access to highway network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. The site is remote and lacks adequate width to cater for additional HGVs, which could be generated by development at this site. In addition the two junctions at either end of Hill Lane are considered unsuitable to cater for additional HGVs Markfield South Charnwood High School and the associated Staff House should be designated as a Community Facility

Key Rural Centres within the National Forest

Bagworth

Thornton THO09 Thornton Primary The playing fields between the allotments should be included in the Community School Facility designation Thornton

Key Rural Centres Stand Alone

Barlestone BARL01 Newbold Road Residential Allocation of this site would be contrary to Highway Authority development Barlestone (10 dwellings) control and access to highway network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. The site would be served by an unsafe form of vehicular access. BARL02 Land to the east Residential Acceptable in principle. Satisfies development control and access to highway of Brookside (30 dwellings) network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. Possible requirement to contribute Barlestone towards the provision/improvement of Highway and Transportation infrastructure in the vicinity to mitigate against the impact of developing this site.

17 Site Location Proposed Comments Reference Allocation MKBOS19 Market Bosworth The area of land to the east, leased out for football pitches should be included in Park the designation Market Bosworth MKBOS22 Playing Fields Listing should be amended to say 'Playing fields for Market Bosworth Community Market College and St Peter's Primary School' Bosworth MKBOS23 High School Correct school name to 'Market Bosworth Community College' and add Market reference to a library on the site Bosworth NEW13 Land to the rear Residential Allocation of this site would be contrary to Highway Authority development of Mill Lane (1 dwelling) control and access to highway network policies as contained in ‘Htd’. This site Newbold Verdon may result in loss of parking facilities for adjacent properties and may result in on-street parking occurring on roads and footpaths within vicinity of the site

Stoke Golding STG02b LA St.Martins Employment To discourage use of weight restricted routes by inappropriate vehicles the level Convent of warehousing / storage should be limited. There should also be contribution Stoke Golding towards pedestrian / cycle facilities and traffic calming / junction improvements to mitigate the impact of the scheme Rural Villages Higham on the Hill HIG09 Primary School Land to the east should be included in Community Facility designation and Community Centre Higham on the Hill

Nailstone NAI11 Dove Bank The playing field to the north east should be included in the Community Facility Primary School designation Nailstone

18 Site Location Proposed Comments Reference Allocation

Sheepy Magna SHE06 Sheepy Magna The north east part of the site should be included in the Community Facility Primary School designation Sheepy Magna Stanton Under Bardon STA10 Stanton under The south east part of the site should be included in the Community Facility Bardon Primary designation School Stanton Under Bardon Policy DSC1: Development and Design, as it stands, does not quite meet the Design and requirement of the Regional Waste Strategy for “…consideration to the provision Construction of appropriate facilities for the storage and collection of recyclable materials.” Also that the policy does not directly refer to the encouragement of the reuse of waste in new developments. The Sustainability Appraisal of this policy indicates that it may assist in the reuse of materials but this is not clear from the policy. It would add clarity to the objective of this policy If the final bullet point (k) or the preceding text indicated this. In terms of recycling facilities a bullet point of “Provision of appropriate facilities for the storage and collection of recyclable materials” would overcome this issue raised. Local Wildlife Sites (LWSs) are not protected by their classification, only by the Environment and expectation that as probably being an example of a priority Local Biodiversity Community Action Plan and UK Biodiversity Action Plan habitat they should be protected or mitigation should be in place to replace it. Also because many LWSs are of equivalent quality to Sites of Special Scientific Interest, this is not a trivial issue.

19