blaby district council development control committee...

Blaby District CouncilDevelopment Control Committee

Date of Meeting 2 April 2015Title of Report Planning Applications for DeterminationReport Author Development Services Manager

1. What is this report about?

1.1 To determine planning applications as listed in paragraph 3.2 below and detailed in the attached report.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the recommendations listed within paragraph 3.2 below and detailed in the attached report be approved.

3. Matters to consider

3.1 To avoid unnecessary delay in the processing of planning applications, the recommendations included in this list must often be prepared in advance of the closing date for the receipt of representations. This list was prepared on 23 March 2015 and information of representations received will be updated at your meeting. This updating will also cover any other information which may come to hand in the intervening period. Closing dates are given where they fall on or after the day of preparation of the list.

3.2 Application No.

Page No.

Address Recommendation

14/0965/1/PX

14/1081/1/PX

14/1120/1/PX

15/0051/FUL

13

23

29

34

Land west of Beggars LaneLeicester Forest East

Bridge FarmBurbage Common RoadElmesthorpe

Land off Enderby Road (adj Whetstone Recycling Site)Whetstone

Land rear of 66-106

APPROVE

APPROVE

APPROVE

APPROVE

15/0115/OUT

15/0176/OUT

15/0246/FUL

43

63

84

Station RoadGlenfield

Land off Denman LaneHuncote

Land off Cork LaneGlen Parva

Leysland High SchoolWinchester RoadCountesthorpe

APPROVE

APPROVE

APPROVE

.3 Appropriate consultations

Details of organisations / persons consulted in relation to the applications are included in the reports for each individual application. Members will be aware that full copies of correspondence received are available to view on the respective planning file.

3.4 Resource implications

There are no specific financial implications arising from the contents of this report.

4. Other options considered

These are included where appropriate as part of the reports relating to each individual application.

5. Background paper(s)

Background papers are contained in files held in the Planning Division for each application being considered and are available for public inspection.

6. Report author’s contact details Kristy Ingles Development Services [email protected] 0116 272 7565

14/0965/1/PX Registered Date Taylor Wimpey UK Limited21 October 2014

Residential development for 32 dwellings and associated highway infrastructure

Land to the West of Beggars Lane, Leicester Forest East

Report Author: Debra Harrison, Planning Officer

Contact Details: Council Offices. Tel: 0116 272 7564

RECOMMENDATION THAT APPLICATION 14/0965/1/PX BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANTS ENTERING INTO EITHER A SECTION 106 AGREEMENT OR UNILATERAL UNDERTAKING TO SECURE THE FOLLOWING:

1. Affordable housing provision to be agreed2. Off-site open space maintenance contribution3. Education contribution to be agreed4. Library contribution to be agreed5. NHS contribution to be agreed6. Highways contribution to be agreed

And subject to the imposition of the following conditions:

1. Statutory 3 year condition2. List of approved plans3. Materials to be agreed in writing4. Soft and hard landscaping scheme to be agreed5. Landscaping scheme to be carried out6. Exact position and finished floor levels to be agreed7. No conversion of garages to living accommodation 8. Maximum height of 0.6 metres for walls, planting or fences9. Gradient of the access drives shall not exceed 1:12 for the 5 metres behind

the highway boundary10. No surface water drainage onto public highway11. Construction management plan to be agreed12. Off street parking provision to be provided13. Vehicular access to be hard surfaced14. Minimum width of shared private drives serving more than 5 dwellings to be

4.25 metres wide for first 5 metres15. Footway link along northern boundary to be provided prior to first occupation16. Buffer zones of 5 metres of natural vegetation to be maintained along retained

hedgerows17. Surface water drainage scheme to be submitted and agreed

NOTES TO COMMITTEE

POLICY

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012)

Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (Adopted February 2013)

Policy CS1 Strategy for locating new developmentPolicy CS2 Design of new developmentPolicy CS5 Housing Distribution Policy CS8 Mix of Housing Policy CS18 CountrysidePolicy CS24 Presumption in favour of sustainable development

Blaby District Local Plan (1999)

Policy C2 Other Development in the CountrysidePolicy T6 Off Street Parking Provision

CONSULTATIONS

Blaby District Council Environmental Health – Made the following comments:

“I have considered the documents submitted with this application, notably the flood risk assessment and the transport assessment.

I have no adverse comments to make on the proposal.

I would add that we are undertaking air quality monitoring along the A47 Hinckley Road Leicester Forest East to measure the impact of various developments on this corridor. We will also continue to work with colleagues at Leicestershire County Council to address traffic- related air quality issues that arise.”

Blaby District Council Neighbourhood Services - Initial comments 28 October 2014:

“I can confirm that Neighbourhood Services have a number of concerns with regard to bin presentation points and would ask that the following be incorporated.

Could it be a requirement of the application that the waste containers for plots 1, 2, 3 and 6 are presented at the front of the properties on collection day as experience tells me that they will be left in the parking areas at the back of the properties and over time this will cause a nuisance issue for the occupiers of the properties.

Could a bin presentation area be provided for plots 7, 14 and 15 at the end of the shared drive.

Could a bin presentation area be provided for plots 10, 11, 12 and 13 at the end of the shared drive.

Could a bin presentation area be provided for plots 23 - 26 at the end of the shared drive.

Could a bin presentation area be provided for plots 29, 30 and 31 somewhere on the grassed area opposite plot 22.”

These comments have been addressed in the revised layout.

Environment Agency – Recommends approval subject to conditions

Leicestershire County Council, Archaeology – No comments received

Leicestershire County Council, Developer Contributions – Made the following requests for developer contributions:

Education £208,866.72Libraries £970Highways:Travel Packs (1 per dwelling) at £52.8548.85 per pack (if supplied through LCC)6 month bus passes (2 per dwelling) at £350 per pass (if supplied through LCC)

Leicestershire County Council, Ecology – Made the following comments:

“I have no objections to this application as long as it is implemented in accordance with the submitted layout. The ecology report (EDP 2014).is satisfactory, and is an update of a previous report done on 2010/11 for the adjacent development site. No further surveys are required. Very little features of more than local value were identified, all boundary features, and all will be retained in the development according to the submitted Site Layout Plan.I recommend these conditions:1. Development to be in accordance with the Site Layout Plan CSa/2276/1012. Buffer zones of at least 5 m of natural vegetation to be maintained alongside all retained hedgerows3. Light spill onto retained hedgerows and the brook corridor to be minimised to a value of 11ux or lower at the edge of the habitats.4. Removal of vegetation outside the bird nesting season”

Leicestershire County Council, Highways – Recommends approval subject to conditions.

Leicestershire County Council, Minerals and Waste Planning – Awaiting comments.

Leicestershire Fire and Rescue – Referred to standard advice.

Leicester Forest East Parish Council – Made the following comments:

“The Parish Council would like to strongly object to the above planning application for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development would increase the number of vehicles accessing the A47 Hinckley Road and Beggars Lane.

2. Loss of green open space3. A concern that if this application is approved then this development as a whole

will creep down Beggars Lane towards Enderby and up towards Desford Cross Roads on the Hinckley Road.

4. Extra pressure on the local infrastructure, i.e., schools, health facilities. However, we are aware that the District Council could grant planning permission and if this were the case we would respectfully request that s106 monies are set aside for the following - local schools, health facilities, libraries, extra open play spaces.”

Lubbesthorpe Parish Council – No comments received.

NHS – Has requested a developer contribution of £12,172.80

Severn Trent Water – Awaiting comments.

Highways Agency – no comments to make on this application

Representations

Six letters of representation received objecting to the proposed development on the following grounds:

Purchased a house on Phase 1 scheme and were not made aware of plans to build on this field, paid a premium to purchase a plot with views over the fields;

Misrepresentation from Taylor Wimpey homes; There is no need for additional houses; Level of traffic is high with only one road servicing the whole development; Insufficient lighting on existing scheme, does not appear to be sufficient on

new plans; Leicester Forest East has been subject to much development which have not

been considered acceptable by residents or local Parish Council; Lubbesthorpe was approved despite objections; Traffic issues and Beggars Lane is one of least safe roads in the District; The Parish of Leicester Forest East is polluted to levels in excess of EU

regulations and this development will only increase the pollution level; Local facilities are at capacity and existing residents cannot register at local

surgery; Flooding occurred on land two fields away from the application site last winter; Adding further social/affordable housing is detrimental to the local area, house

prices and social living; Lack of public playing areas for children, the nearest parks are too far and too

dangerous to visit; Not enough car parking provided on proposed site.

Relevant History

There are no applications which related directly to this application site. However the planning history relating to the adjacent site to the north of the application site is relevant to this planning application.

App No: 11/0264/1/OXDevelopment: Proposed residential development (maximum 145 dwellings)

associated landscaping, public open space and infrastructure with vehicular access off Beggars Lane (Outline)

Outcome: Permitted.

App No: 12/0707/1/MXDevelopment: Proposed residential development (maximum 145 dwellings)

associated landscaping, public open space and infrastructure with vehicular access off Beggars Lane (Reserved Matters)

Outcome: Permitted

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Proposal

This planning application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 32 dwellings on land off Beggars Lane, Leicester Forest East. The application site is located to the south of the development by Taylor Wimpey which has planning permission for 145 dwellings and is accessed from this existing development site.

To the south and west of the application site is agricultural land. The former Kingstand Golf and Country Club is also located to the east of the site with the access to the former golf club directly adjoining the southern boundary of the application site.

The proposed development comprises the development of 24 open market dwellings and 8 affordable units (25%).

Supporting Documents The applicant submitted the following documents in support of the application:

Planning Statement; Design and Access Statement; Transport Statement; Flood Risk Assessment; Heritage Statement; Ecology Appraisal; Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment; Arboricultural Assessment.

The applicants have also confirmed their willingness to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to secure, where appropriate, any Developer Contribution requests.Planning Considerations

Section 38(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, requires planning application’s to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless there are other material considerations which indicate otherwise. This section of the report will first consider the proposed development against the policy background and then consider any other material considerations.


The NPPF indicates that proposals which accord with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposals that conflict should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is a material consideration in determining planning applications.

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision taking this means, unless material considerations indicate otherwise:

Approving development that accords with the development plan without delay.

Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless:

any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the NPPF as a whole; or

specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.

To boost significantly the supply of housing, Local Planning Authorities should identify a supply of deliverable sites sufficient to provide 5 years worth of housing with an additional buffer of 5%, or 20% where there has been a record of persistent under delivery.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013)

The adopted Core Strategy (February 2013) is now part of the Development Plan for the district of Blaby and the following policies are relevant to the proposed development:

Policy CS1 Strategy for Locating New Development

Policy CS1 encourages new development to take place within and in areas adjoining the Principal Urban Area (PUA) of Leicester. The PUA comprises the ‘built-up’ areas of Leicester Forest East, Glenfield, Kirby Muxloe, Braunstone Town and Glen Parva. Policy CS2 Design of New Development

Policy CS2 seeks to ensure that a high quality environment is achieved in all new development proposals, respecting distinctive local character and contributing towards creating places of high architectural and urban design quality. The design of new development should also be appropriate to its context.

Policy CS5 Housing Distribution

Policy CS5 aims to focus new development in the most appropriate locations, the District Council seeks to distribute housing by settlement in accordance with the figures contained within the Core Strategy. The PUA has a combined minimum housing figure of 5,750 dwellings to find. Against this target, some 5,604 dwellings have been built or committed (as at 1 April 2014), leaving a balance required to be found of 146 dwellings to meet the minimum requirement set out in Policies CS1 and CS5 for the PUA. Since 1 April 2014 the Council has released further land for housing in this area, 160 dwellings have been approved on land off Forest House Lane, Leicester Forest East. Taking this into account, the minimum requirement for the PUA would be met by existing commitments.

Policy CS7 Affordable Housing

Policy CS7 requires developments of 15 or more dwellings to provide a minimum of 25 % of the total number of dwellings on site as affordable housing.

Policy CS8 Mix of Housing

Policy CS8 seeks to ensure that developments of 10 or more dwellings should provide an appropriate mix of housing type and size to serve the needs of existing and future households in the District.

Policy CS10 Transport Infrastructure

Policy CS10 sets out the Council’s preferred approach to locating new development where people can access services and facilities without reliance on ‘private motor vehicles’.

Policy CS11 Infrastructure, Services and Facilities to Support Growth

Policy CS11 seeks to ensure that all new development is supported by good access to infrastructure, services and facilities to support growth.

Policy CS18 Countryside

Policy CS18 states that within areas designated as Countryside, planning permission will not be granted for built development which would have a significantly adverse effect on the character and appearance of the landscape. The need to retain countryside will be balanced against the need to provide new development in the most sustainable locations.

Policy CS19 Bio-diversity and Geo-diversity

Policy CS19 seeks to ensure that the District’s natural environment is protected and enhanced. Policy CS22 Flood Risk Management

Development is directed to locations at the lowest risk of flooding, giving priority to flood zone 1. The use of Sustainable Drainage Systems to ensure that flood risk is not increased on site or elsewhere is also encouraged in new developments.

Policy CS24 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Policy CS24 reflects the overarching principle of the NPPF that the Government wishes to see in relation to the planning system, including housing delivery - with the golden thread running through the decision making process being the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Policy CS24 requires that when considering development proposals the District Council will take a positive approach and will always work proactively with applicants to find solutions which mean that proposals can be approved wherever possible.


Although the Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013) has been adopted, a number of policies from the Blaby District Local Plan (1999) continue to be saved. The following policy is of relevance to this application.

Policy C2 Countryside

Policy C2 states that within areas designated as Countryside, planning permission will not be granted for built development which would have a significantly adverse effect on the character and appearance of the landscape.

Policy T6 Off Street Parking Provision

Policy T6 requires new development to provide a minimum of two off street car parking spaces per two and three bed dwelling and three off street car parking spaces per four + bed dwelling.

Material Considerations

Principle of Development

As identified on the proposals map, the application site is located in the countryside outside the built up area of Leicester Forest East. Beggars Lane forms the boundary to the built up area of Leicester Forest East and the countryside. In assessing whether the principle of the development of this site is acceptable given its location in the countryside, the wider context of the surrounding area must be taken into consideration. To the north of the application site Taylor Wimpey are currently developing 145 dwellings and to the south east is the Lubbesthorpe SUE.

A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) was submitted in support of this application and concluded that views of the site are limited to overlooking properties short distance views from the south, with a maximum viewing distance of approximately 1km. Your Officers agree with this conclusion.

Given the sites already urbanised setting and small size it is not considered that the development of this site would have a significantly adverse effect on the character and appearance of the landscape and would not conflict with the aims of Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy and saved Policy C2 of the Local Plan.

The development of land in the countryside for housing needs to be balanced against the need to provide development in the most sustainable locations. The Core Strategy promotes a strategy urban concentration and directs development to the PUA. Leicester Forest East forms part of the PUA. The minimum housing target for the PUA has been met, with 5,604 dwellings being built or committed (as at 1 April 2014), leaving a balance required to be found of 146 dwellings to meet the minimum requirement set out in Policies CS1 and CS5 for the PUA. Since 1 April 2014 the Council has released further land for housing in the PUA, most notably 160 dwellings on land off Forest House Lane, Leicester Forest East and 88 dwellings on land at Barry Close, both within the PUA.

Notwithstanding this, the housing requirement in Policy CS1 and CS5 are identified as a minimum and the Core Strategy promotes a policy of ‘urban concentration’. Taking this into account, and the level of existing commitments, it is considered that the proposal for 32 dwellings would only marginally exceed the minimum requirement for the area and would not conflict with Core Strategy Policies CS1 and CS5 at present.

Design

The proposed development is accessed off the existing Taylor Wimpey site, which is currently under development and reflects the site layout of the adjoining site. The site layout proposes clusters of dwellings each being accessed off the main roads through the site. Due to the small size of the site and connection with the adjoining site, formal on-site public open space is not proposed as part of this development but a financial contribution towards off-site provision is being sought instead.

The principal elevations of the proposed dwellings on the edge of the application site face outwards, which in combination with landscaping along the southern, eastern and western boundaries to the site contributes towards a “soft edge” to the development from the countryside.

A number of dwelling types approved on the current Taylor Wimpey development site are also proposed as part of this development and the remaining house types are considered to reflect the design and appearance of the existing development.

The proposed development will not impact on the residential amenity of the occupants of the neighbouring site.

Affordable Housing and Housing Mix

The proposed development has been amended since it was first submitted to provide an acceptable mix of housing, open market and affordable, to comply with the requirements of Core Strategy Policies CS7 and CS8 and the adopted Housing Mix and Affordable Housing SPD.

Eight dwellings (25%) will be provided as affordable housing units in line with the following mix: 2 x 3 bed semi-detached dwellings6 x 2 bed semi-detached dwellings

The remaining twenty four dwellings will be open market dwellings in line with the following mix:11 x 4 bed detached dwellings6 x 3 bed detached dwellings6 x 2 bed semi-detached dwellings 1 x 2 bed bungalow

Other Material Considerations

No objections have been raised by Leicestershire County Council Ecology, the Local Highways Authority or the Environment Agency who have all recommended approval subject to conditions.

Conclusion

This application seeks planning permission for the development of 32 dwellings and whilst the site is a greenfield site located within the countryside, the site is located within the PUA of Leicester where new development is focussed to support the urban concentration strategy promoted in the Core Strategy.

The proposed development would marginally exceed the minimum housing requirement for the PUA, and it is not considered this development would conflict with Core Strategy Policies CS1 and CS5 at present.

There are no technical objections to the proposed development and in light of the above this application is recommended for approval subject to the imposition of conditions and the developer entering into a legal agreement to secure developer contributions.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

14/1081/1/PX Registered Date Mr D Hebblethwaite.4 February 2015

Erection of agricultural storage buildings

Bridge Farm, Burbage Common, Elmesthorpe

Report Author: Satu Pardivalla, Planning Officer


RECOMMENDATION Approval subject to the following conditions:

1. Statutory 3 year condition2. Materials/finish3. Approved drawings4. Archaeological (Investigation/recording)

NOTES TO COMMITTEE

POLICY

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

The National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) (2014)

DEVELOPMENT PLAN


Policy CS 2 – Design of New DevelopmentPolicy CS 18 – CountrysidePolicy CS 20 – Historic Environment and CulturePolicy CS24. – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Blaby District Local Plan (BLDLP) (1999)

Policy C1 – Agricultural Buildings in the Countryside

Other Supporting Documents

BDC Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment (2008)

CONSULTATIONS

Elmesthorpe Parish Council – Has no objections.

Environment Agency – Has stated that the site is of low priority where standing advice applies and it has no comments to make.

Environmental Health Officer – Not received.

Leicestershire County Council Archaeologist – Has stated that the area around proposed Building One is rich in archaeological remains and has therefore recommended that any planning permission is granted subject to a condition requiring a programme of archaeological work and written scheme of investigation.

Leicestershire County Council, Highways – No comments received.

Severn Trent Water Authority – No comments received.

Representations

None received.

Relevant History

None of relevance to the proposal.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Site

Bridge Farm is located near the south-western corner of the District boundary towards the southern fringe of Earl Shilton and just to the north of the railway line.

The Proposal

The proposal is to construct two agricultural farm buildings. Building One is the larger of the two measuring 31 metres by 18.3 metres and is to be used for grain storage and drying. This building is to be sited on the farm complex side of an open field to the east. Building Two measures 23 metres by 12 metres and is to be used for agricultural pig rearing; it will replace an existing building within the compound of farm buildings.

The heights of the two buildings are significantly different. The larger of the two buildings is almost 8 metres to ridge level and 6 m metres to eaves. Building Two will be 4.6 metres to ridge level and 3.6 metres to eaves.

The buildings are required due to the expansion of the farm business and consolidation of additional farm land. Grain is currently stored in a building located within the complex and which is proposed to be replaced by Building Two. About 300 pigs will be reared in Building Two. Building One is to provide larger replacement grain storage facilities, and to that extent represents creation of additional development.

Planning Considerations

Section 38(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless there are other material considerations which indicate otherwise. This section of the report will first consider the proposed development against the policy background and then consider any other material considerations.

There are a number of themes which run through national guidance as expressed in the National Planning Policy Framework and these are generally in line with local policies expressed through the Development Plan. Key themes in the case of this application are that new development should be sustainable and the promotion of good design.

POLICY FRAMEWORK


The Government is committed to securing sustainable economic growth and supporting economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity. To this end it promotes the development and diversification of agricultural and other land based rural businesses.

The Government attaches great importance to good design as a key aspect of sustainable development.

The Government stresses the importance of recognising that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserving them in a manner appropriate to their local significance.

The National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) (2014)

The NPPG provides supporting guidance to the interpretation of the NPPF and reiterates advice on good design and the importance of conserving heritage assets.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN


The adopted Core Strategy (February 2013) is now part of the Development Plan for the District of Blaby. It is an up-to-date plan that is consistent with National Policy and therefore the policies of the Core Strategy should be given full statutory weight. The following policies are the most relevant to the principle of the proposed development.

Policy CS2 – Design of New Development

This policy aims to secure a high quality environment where design has a central role in shaping a better quality of life.

Policy CS18 – Countryside

Policy CS18 seeks to protect those areas outside the limits of the built development which are not subject to any other designation such as green wedge. This policy supports the national recognition of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside contained within the NPPF. In assessing proposals for development the supporting text to the policy recommends that due regard should be had to the Blaby District Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment (May 2008). This assessment is considered below.

Policy CS20 – Historic Environment and Culture

Policy CS20 aims to improve and enhance the cultural heritage of the District, the policy reflects similar objectives at the national level. The thrust of policy is that harm should be avoided and be balanced against potential benefits.

Policy CS24 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Policy CS24 reflects the overarching principle of the NPPF that the Government wishes to see in relation to the planning system - with the golden thread running through the decision making process being the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Blaby District Local Plan (BDLP) (1999)

Policy C1 – Agricultural Buildings in the Countryside

Policy C1 states that permission will be granted for agricultural buildings providing that the development would have a satisfactory relationship with nearby uses.

Policy Considerations

Landscape and Visual Impact

Policies CS 18 (Countryside) and BDLP C1 (Agricultural buildings in the countryside) resist built development in the countryside where there would be adverse impact on the appearance and character of the landscape, and on nearby uses. This impact assessment is made against the intrinsic landscape features identified as important in the Blaby District Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment (May 2008).

The Blaby District Character Assessment (May 2008)

The application site falls within the Floodplain Landscape Character Area and the Elmesthorpe Floodplain Landscape Character type. The centre of this landscape area is described as an area of low topography at 85 metres AOD which gently rises in all directions providing a degree of enclosure and restricting views. The central part of this area is predominately flat to gently sloping. There are channelled localised views across the character area.

The application site lies within a flat area of open land sloping away to the east and rising to the south with sparse planting. Burbage Common Road serves the farm from the south, the Leicester to Nuneaton railway line lies adjacent, and the M69

some 1.5 km further to the south. A public footpath V23 runs some 190 metres to the east of the site, with public footpath U50 running parallel but some 320 metres beyond.

Notwithstanding the rural character of the landscape in which the proposed farm buildings would be sited, it is not designated and is therefore not deemed to be of the highest quality or worthy of the highest degree of protection. Furthermore, the site is set against a backdrop of existing farm buildings associated with the agricultural holding. The site can therefore be described as a landscape with many nearby modern human influences.

With respect to the overall impact on the landscape the key issue is that there is no fundamental conflict with core strategy policy CS18 which seeks to minimize impact on the local landscape character. The proposal would not result in the loss of historic field patterns and boundary features.

In relation to visual impact, due to the flat topography the site is very visible from the surrounding area, and especially from Burbage Common Road, and public footpaths V23 and U50. Having said this Building Two is a replacement unit within the existing complex of buildings and its visual impact will minimal. Building One, because of its size and height, will be prominent from public receptors. However, this building will be set against the backdrop of existing varied and large farm structures which will mitigate against visual intrusion from public views.

Taking the above into account, the landscape is capable of absorbing the proposed buildings without fundamentally changing the strongly rural character and appearance of the wider landscape character area or becoming the defining feature of it. The overall impact would be moderate and fairly localised; the balance of any negative impact on the landscape is outweighed by the positive benefits of the proposal. It is therefore concluded that an objection on grounds on impact on the landscape, and visual amenities would therefore not be sustainable.

Impact on archaeology

Policy CS20 (Historic Environment and Culture) mirrors guidance in paragraphs 132 and 134 of the NPPF, this seeks to ensure the protection and enhancement of heritage assets, and avoid harm to them.

In this instance, impact on the deserted village of Billington (De-scheduled 19.01.2005) and other archaeological remains in the area need to be taken into account. The County Archaeologist has been consulted in relation to impact on these assets. The County Archaeologist recommends that any permission should be conditioned to require appropriate recording of any archaeological remains found during the course of construction.


Planning applications must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless there are material considerations which indicate otherwise, and whether those material considerations are of such weight that the adopted policies of the Development Plan should not prevail in relation to any proposal.

In addition to the policy considerations set out above, the main issues that need to be taken into account in the consideration of this application are as set out below.

Highways:

The Highway Authority has been consulted in relation to the movement of heavy vehicles associated with a large agricultural enterprise. The Highways Authority is satisfied that the proposal would not lead to highway safety problems.

Residential Amenity:

Any impact on nearby properties will be to those dwellings associated with agricultural enterprises and located a considerable distance away, as such any impact is considered to be localised and not of such magnitude that it would be unacceptably dominant, oppressive or overbearing.

Conclusion

It is acknowledged that to some extent, the proposal would have some impact on the landscape and will also have a visual impact. However, it is considered that any harm caused will be limited to the immediate area and in this case is outweighed by the economic benefits.

For the reasons outlined above, the proposal is considered to accord with national policy and local policy

In reaching the decision the Council has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner by determining the application without undue delay. As such it is considered that the decision is in accordance with paragraphs 186 -187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

In conclusion it is therefore recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions(s) mentioned above.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

14/1120/1/PX Registered Date Blaby District Council8 January 2015

Erection of two buildings to form District Council operational and vehicle maintenance depot including administration offices, vehicle storage, servicing facilities and associated works

Land off Enderby Road (adjacent to Whetstone Recycling and Household Waste Site), Whetstone

Report Author: Peter Gibson, Planning Officer


RECOMMENDATIONAPPROVE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. Time limit2. Materials to be agreed prior to above ground construction3. Landscaping to be agreed4. Landscaping to be carried out5. External plant to be agreed prior to installation6. Lighting scheme to be agreed prior to installation7. Off-street car / lorry parking to be provided and maintained8. Cycle parking to be provided and maintained9. Approved plans

NOTES TO COMMITTEE

Relevant Planning Policy


National Planning Policy Guidance (2014)

Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document(2013)

Policy CS1 – Strategy for Locating New DevelopmentPolicy CS2 – Design of New DevelopmentPolicy CS6 – EmploymentPolicy CS10 – Transport InfrastructurePolicy CS22 – Flood Risk ManagementPolicy CS23 – WastePolicy CS24 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development


Policy E1 – Primarily Employment AreasPolicy T6 – Off Street Parking ProvisionPolicy CE22 – Landscaping

Policy CE26 – Light PollutionPolicy M3 – Contaminated LandPolicy CF7 – Sewage Treatment Works Cordon Sanitaire

Consultations

Blaby District Council, Environmental Health – The contents of the submitted Geo-Environmental Report appears to be satisfactory. The interpretative report concluded that the site was suitable for continued industrial / commercial use and therefore would be consistent with the proposed use.

Blaby Parish Council – No observations.

Enderby Parish Council – No objection.

Environment Agency – Comments awaited.

Glen Parva Parish Council – No observations.

Leicestershire County Council, Ecology – No comments or objections.

Leicestershire County Council, Highways – There is acceptable existing infrastructure in place for the site access. The proposal, if permitted, will generate very few peak hour traffic movements. Whilst Enderby Road is extremely congested at peak times, the Highway Authority is not in a position to suggest that this proposal will have an unacceptable and severe impact on the existing situation. Conditions recommended.

Leicestershire County Council, Planning – The proposed site plan shows the same part of the site as landscaping as planning permission 12/0675/1/CX, which is welcomed. It is requested that this area is retained as landscaping.

Severn Trent Water – No objection.

Whetstone Parish Council – Comments awaited.

Third Party Representations

None.

Relevant Planning History

12/0675/1/CX Redevelopment of Whetstone Recycling and ApprovedHousehold Waste Site and waste transfer 26.11.12station (adjacent)

14/0044/1/PX Erection of ready mix concrete batching plant Approved (adjacent) 21.03.14

14/0209/1/CY Retrospective application to raise existing Approved

ground levels at Whetstone Recycling and 17.04.14 Household Waste Site and waste transfer

station (adjacent) EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Site

The application site is approximately 1.1 hectares in area and it comprises the former Whetstone Recycling and Household Waste Site and waste transfer station (RHWS), which has now been relocated immediately to the north. Enderby Road Industrial Estate and the sewage works lie to the west and Grange Business Park is located to the south, beyond the railway line. The site is generally level, with an area of re-graded land to its eastern section and predominantly hardsurfaced. 2 metre high surrounding palisade fencing is in situ.

The Proposal

Amended plans have been received indicating: alterations to the parking layout, changes to elevations (relating to a minor width increase to Blocks 1 and 2, minor roof height increase to Block 2 and changes to windows, doors, rooflights, solar panels, entrance canopies) and changes to floor plans; and, the provision of new external plant (fuel bund, pump island, air conditioning compound and stores).

The proposed new depot consists of a large rectangular building (Block 1) to the south boundary of approximately 132 metres in length, 15.7 metres in width and ranging from 5.5 to 8.2 metres in height to ridge level with brickwork, aluminium cladding and timber slats to its external elevations. It comprises administration offices, staff facilities, garaging for refuse collection and sweeper vehicles and storage areas with the scope for a potential internal storage platform.

A further building (Block 2) to the north is some 40.7 metres in length, 18.8 metres in width and a maximum of 9.4 metres in height with similar external materials as above (excluding timber slats). It comprises ancillary offices, staff facilities, garage / workshop areas with a mezzanine level for plant and storage.

A large area of turning / manoeuvring space is shown between these proposed buildings in addition to a jet wash facility; various stores and parking bays. Separate visitor and staff car parks are to be provided and a notional external lighting scheme has been submitted. Vehicle access would be gained from the waste transfer station service road and the RHWS access road.

The normal hours of operation would be 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday to Friday with occasional Saturday working.

An amended Design and Access Statement, a Planning Briefing Statement, Site Investigation Report / Summary, a Flood Risk Assessment, Energy Strategy Report, Transport and Travel Plan Statements have been submitted in support of the proposal.


Section 38(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless there are other material considerations which indicate otherwise.

The application site is within a Primarily Employment Area (Policy E1) wherein proposed development for business, general industrial and storage / distribution uses are acceptable in principle subject to compliance with the specified criteria.

The proposed depot buildings are substantial in size. The majority of Block 1 is limited to an overall height of 5.5 metres adjoining the shared access road with the RHWS, whilst Block 2, which is higher, is “read” against the waste transfer station to the north. Whilst their appearance is industrial, the new buildings would be in keeping with Enderby Road Industrial Estate and the RHWS.

The proposal will enable the relocation of the existing Blaby District Council vehicle maintenance depot on Warwick Road, Littlethorpe which is surrounded by predominantly residential properties. It is considered that the proposed development of this alternative site with a purpose-built vehicle depot of the scale and appearance indicated would be appropriate given that the surrounding area is generally industrial in nature. Consequently, there will be a limited impact upon the wider locality.

Additionally, the application site comprises the former RHWS, which has now been relocated immediately to the north. The nearest dwellings fronting Sunnyside Close to the east are located in excess of 70 metres away from the application site beyond the railway line. Therefore, the amenities of these neighbouring residents should remain largely unaffected by the scheme and the sheltered nature of the inner service yard would help to limit noise and disturbance levels. It is also understood that HGV’s will be reversed into parking bays at the end of the operational day to minimise early morning reversing.

No objections have been received from the Council’s Environmental Health Section concerning both adjoining occupiers’ amenities or users of the proposed development with regard to both the sewage works cordon sanitaire and any potential risk from land contamination. A site investigation has indicated that the majority of the site has been found to be generally uncontaminated and any low level contamination does not exceed relevant assessment criteria for an industrial / commercial land use.

The new depot represents a highly sustainable development as District Council refuse vehicles would benefit from the close proximity of the RHWS immediately to the north to unload. Clearly, this would reduce levels of fuel consumption, pollution and impact on the surrounding road network.

No ecological concerns arise in this case with regard to existing wildlife habitats. The modest landscaping areas shown would help to increase bio-diversity in the area and the planting of a long, linear hedgerow along the southern site boundary is welcomed.

The final comments of the Environment Agency are awaited with regard to any flooding implications with regard to the River Sence. However, it is not anticipated that an objection could be substantiated to the principle of the scheme given the historic brownfield use of the application site and there is no proposed increase of existing impermeable areas. As the site is characterised as Flood Zone 1, it is at low risk from flooding.

The existing main access onto the B582 Enderby Road is to be utilised. The County Highway Authority is satisfied with the vehicular access provision and that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon peak time congestion on Enderby Road. Levels of car parking for 10 visitor spaces and 52 staff spaces (inclusive of 4 disabled parking spaces) are acceptable. Notwithstanding the above, Enderby Road has a segregated shared footway / cycleway running adjacent to its south side and a footway along part of its northern side and public transport provision exists in the vicinity. Cycle parking provision would be controlled by a condition. Therefore, the site will be accessible for staff to travel to by non-car modes.

In light of the above, the proposal is considered to be acceptable (subject to no objections being received from the Environment Agency) and accordingly it is recommended that planning permission is granted in this case.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

15/0051/FUL Registered Date Mr D Miles 8 January 2015

Erection of 6 detached dwellings with associated access

Land to the rear of 66 – 106 Station Road, Glenfield

Report Author: Gwen Edwards, Planning Consultant


RECOMMENDATIONApproval subject to the imposition of the following conditions:

1. Statutory time condition2. Amendments3. Approved drawings4. Materials to be agreed in writing5. Landscaping to be agreed6. Landscaping scheme to be carried out7. Scheme for noise protection to be agreed8. Removal of permitted development rights for extensions etc.9. Removal of permitted development rights for additional openings10. Flood mitigation measures11. Finished floor levels12. Detailed drainage calculations and designs to be approved13. Foul and surface water details to be approved14. Boundary treatment to be implemented15. No vehicular access gates etc.16. No walls etc. over 0.6m high on highway boundary17. No surface water drainage onto public highway18. Turning facilities to be provided within the site19. Construction traffic/site management plan to be approved20. Off street parking provision21. Drives and turning spaces to be surfaced in bound material22. Access drive to be a minimum of 4.8m wide for the first 5m

NOTES TO COMMITTEE

Policy

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

National Planning Guidance

Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (February 2013)

Policy CS1 – Strategy for Locating New DevelopmentPolicy CS2 – Design of New DevelopmentPolicy CS5 – Housing DistributionPolicy CS19 – Bio-diversity and Geo-diversityPolicy CS22 - Flood Risk ManagementPolicy CS24 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development


Policy R1 – Primarily Residential AreasPolicy T6 –Off Street Parking

Consultations

Blaby District Council Environmental Health: Supports the comment of the Environment Agency, covered by conditions.

Blaby District Council Waste Operations Manager: Comments relating to the surfacing of the private drive and bin presentation points, covered by condition 2 and informative.

Glenfield Parish Council: Objects for the following reasons:

“The Parish Council wish to object to the above application on the following grounds:

1) Overcrowding on the site;2) Access and safety issues regarding the entrance to the site from Station

Road;3) Additional traffic on Station Road.

The Parish Council would also like to know if the proposed access which will now serve six dwellings will be constructed to adoptable standards as laid out in the Leicestershire County Council Design Guide? (Extract below).

Section DG18: Residential developments served by private drives and areas

3.209 For developments of more than five dwellings, we will encourage developers to create, whenever possible, “road” layouts that are to an adoptable standard and that will be offered for adoption. We will not normally adopt developments of five or less dwellings.

3.2.10 For developments of six or more dwellings, you should remember the implications both for yourself and house purchasers if we do not adopt the roads, for example:

Future maintenance liabilities; Public liabilities; Street cleansing; Lack of specific pedestrian facilities; Lack of or poor standard of lighting, drainage and so on; We have no powers under the Highways Act; and The police have no powers to remove obstructions.

Poorly maintained private areas can also detract from the quality and appearance of a development.

Could we ask that the Parish Council are made aware of Leicestershire County Council’s Highways comments regarding this development.”

Comments are covered by conditions.

Environment Agency: Recommend conditions relating to surface water and flood mitigation measures and finished floor levels.

Severn Trent Water: No reply. Condition on previous permission included in recommended conditions.

Leicestershire County Council Ecology: Possibility that bats are roosting in the outbuildings, covered by informative.

Leicestershire County Council Highways: Has recommended conditions relating to the access, the driveway, turning facilities, construction traffic/site traffic management plan, car parking and drainage.

Leicestershire County Council Asset and Flood Management: Final detailed drainage calculations and designs should be submitted before development commences, covered by condition.

Representations

Two letters were received, one concerned about the species of two new trees to be planted at the bottom of his garden and one commenting on drainage. Both matters are covered by conditions.

Relevant History

This planning history represents the history of the application site and the land within the applicant’s ownership.

05/0705/1/OX Erection of 6 dwellings & access Refused23 Aug 05

07/0216/1/OX Erection of 6 dwellings & access Refused(Revised scheme) 24 July 07

08/0120/1/OX Erection of 5 dwellings & access Approved(Revised scheme) 3 April 08

08/0974/1/MXErection of 5 dwellings & access, Approvedincluding retention of 106 Station Road 5 Feb 09and outbuildings (Revised scheme)

09/0194/1/PX Erection of 5 dwellings & access, Approvedincluding retention of 106 Station Road 1 June 09and outbuildings (Revised scheme)

09/0597/1/PX Erection of 1 dwelling & access Approved

1 Dec 09

12/0311/1/PX Application to extend time limit to Approvedapplication 09/0194/1/PX 25 May 12

13/0762/1/PX Erection of 1 dwelling & access Approved(Resubmission of 09/0597/1/PX) 12 Dec 14

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Site

This application relates to land at the rear of 66 – 106 Station Road, Glenfield, with the access from Station Road, along the side of No 106, which is retained. To the north-east and south-east are dwellings, to the north-west is the Co-operative store and car park and to the south-west are commercial buildings. It is within the built up area of Glenfield. The land falls to the north-west towards the Co-operative site. There are no significant trees on the site, which is vacant.

The Proposal

The proposal is to erect six detached four bedroomed houses; some garages are integral, some attached and some detached. The site is approximately 0.3 hectares. The dwellings are accessed from a cul-de-sac off Station Road. This also serves a detached dwelling to the north which was granted planning permission in December 2014 (13/0762/1/PX). In support of the application, the applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment.

This site has an extant planning permission for 5 dwellings under planning permission 12/0311/1/PX, which expires in May 2015. The applicant’s agent has discussed the application with the Environment Agency and this has resulted in a relocation of the proposed access road which has enabled an amendment to the proposed layout and design of the dwellings approved under planning permission 12/0311/1/PX, and is the subject of this current application.


Section 38(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless there are other material considerations which indicate otherwise. This section of the report will first consider the proposed development against the policy background and then consider any other material considerations.

There are a number of themes which run through national guidance as expressed in the National Planning Policy Framework and these are generally in line with local policies expressed through the Development Plan. Key themes in the case of this application are that new development should be sustainable and previously developed land should be developed before greenfield sites come forward.


National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

This essential national policy framework establishes the key principles for proactively delivering sustainable development through the development plan system and the determination of planning applications. The emphasis is that development plans allow for development of sufficient housing in sustainable locations and that new development is of good design.

It also sets out the planning approach that the Government wishes to see in relation to many aspects of the planning system, including housing delivery - with the golden thread running through the decision making process being the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

It suggests that in decision-taking, this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and, where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, to grant permission unless:

Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against policies in the NPPF taken as awhole; or

Specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.

The location of this development is within the built-up area of Glenfield and utilises vacant land. Given its location, the proposal is in line with guidance in the NPPF.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN


The adopted Core Strategy (February 2013) is now part of the Development Plan for the District of Blaby and the following policies are relevant to the proposed development:

Policy CS1 – Strategy for Locating New Development

Policy CS1 seeks to focus new housing development in the most sustainable locations in the district, primarily within the principal urban area (PUA) of Leicester and more sustainable towns and villages. Glenfield is within the PUA and is therefore a sustainable location for new development.


Policy CS2 seeks to ensure that a high quality environment is achieved in all new development proposals, respecting distinctive local character and the design of new development should also be appropriate to its context. The proposal is for two

storey residential development in an area predominantly characterised by existing two storey dwellings and is considered to respect the context of the local area and accords with Policy CS2.

Policy CS5 – Housing Distribution

Policy CS5 aims to focus new development in the most appropriate locations, and the District Council seeks to distribute housing by settlement in accordance with the figures contained within the Core Strategy. Glenfield is noted as forming part of the Principal Urban Area which has a combined minimum housing requirement of 5,750 dwellings (including 4,250 within the new SUE) (2006-2029).

As at 1 April 2014, 5604 dwellings had been built and committed in the PUA leaving a residual balance of 146 dwellings to be found.

Since this time, the Council has released further housing land, most notably 160 dwellings on land off Forest House Lane, LFE and resolved to release 88 dwellings on land off Barry Close, Kirby Muxloe and 12 dwellings on land to the rear of 57 – 65 Gynsill Lane, Glenfield.

Taking this into account, the minimum requirement for the PUA has been met by existing commitments. Notwithstanding this, the PUA housing requirement in Policies CS1 and CS5 is identified as a minimum and the Core Strategy promotes a policy of “urban concentration”. Taking this into account, and the level of existing commitments, it is considered that this proposal which would result in a net increase of 1 dwelling in relation to the existing commitment on the site, whilst it would exceed the minimum requirement for the PUA, would not conflict with Core Strategy Policies CS1 and CS5 at present.

Policy CS19 – Biodiversity and Geo-diversity

Policy CS19 seeks to protect and improve areas of biodiversity and wildlife habitat. The Ecology Section of Leicestershire County Council has commented on the possibility of bats roosting in the outbuildings. This is covered by an Informative regarding the inspection of the buildings for the presence of bats before the development is commenced, with any necessary mitigation measures to be implemented, in line with the existing permission for 5 dwellings.

Policy CS22 - Flood Risk Management

Policy CS 22 seeks to minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to flooding. A Flood Risk Assessment has been provided, and conditions have been recommended by the Environment Agency and Leicestershire County Council. The applicant has confirmed that the conditions can be implemented within the site. Conditions are recommended to ensure details are agreed and implemented. Policy CS24 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Policy CS24 reflects the overarching principle of the NPPF that the Government wishes to see in relation to the planning system, including housing delivery - with the golden thread running through the decision making process being the presumption in

favour of sustainable development. Policy CS24 requires that when considering development proposals the District Council will take a positive approach and will always work proactively with applicants to find solutions which mean that proposals can be approved wherever possible. Your Officers have worked with the applicant to ensure that the development accords with adopted policies and thus the development is in accordance with Policy CS24.


Although the Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013) has been adopted a number of policies from the Blaby District Local Plan (1999) continue to be saved. The following policies are of relevance to this application.

Policy R1 – Residential Development within Primarily Residential Areas

This site is located within the Primarily Residential Area and is within the settlement of Glenfield, which is an acceptable location for residential development in principle, subject to the criteria set out in Policy R1. Your Officers consider that the development will accord with Policy R1 and will not be significantly out of keeping with the character of the area, nor will it be significantly detrimental to the amenities of adjoining occupiers when weighed against the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as expressed in both the NPPF and the adopted Core Strategy.

The approval for 5 dwellings on this site showed the positions of the houses 1m from the rear boundary of the site and thus nearer to the boundary with the existing dwellings on Station Road, but designed so that windows to habitable rooms did not overlook the boundary. The current application shows the dwellings sited further away from the boundary and there are windows on the rear elevations facing the dwellings on Station Road. The properties on Station Road are at a higher level than those proposed, which are 1.6m lower. There is a 2m high close boarded fence on the boundary. It is considered that ground floor windows will not overlook the adjacent land. The gardens to the properties on Station Road are 22m long and the total distance between rear first floor elevations is 29m – 32m. Taking the above into account and bearing in mind the existing permission, it is considered the separation distances are acceptable. In order to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents in the future, a condition is recommended to take away Permitted Development Rights to ensure that any extensions respect the amenities of neighbours.

The previous approval on the site included the retention of No 106 Station Road and conditions to mitigate adverse effects have been included in the recommendation, as on the previous planning permission.

Policy T6 – Off Street Parking Provision

Policy T6 states that new residential development should accord with the adopted car parking standards of the District Council. This scheme accords with adopted car parking standards of this Council as required by Policy T6.



In addition to the policy considerations set out above, the material considerations that relate to the development of this site are set out as below:

With regard to the representation received from Glenfield Parish Council, it is considered that the site can accommodate one additional dwelling without compromising residential amenity;

With regard to access and safety issues and additional traffic on Station Road, Leicestershire County Council as the Highway Authority has advised 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 recommended;

The principle of development is in accordance with the provisions of the CoreStrategy;

Sufficient separation has been maintained between the existing and proposeddwellings not to adversely affect amenities;

There are no objections from the Highway Authority, subject to conditions as recommended;

The drainage authorities are satisfied with the submitted details, subject to conditions as recommended;

The impact on ecology has been assessed and can be adequately mitigated through an informative as recommended;

Each plot has been provided with sufficient car parking to comply with the adopted standards of the Council;

In terms of access for refuse vehicles, the Council’s Waste Operations Manager has raised no formal objections to this scheme and the applicant has confirmed that the development complies with the requirements of the Waste Operations Manager.

Conclusion

The key issues in the determination of this planning application are the current policy position, the extant planning permission and any other material considerations.

The policy position is that the site lies within the built-up area of Glenfield where the principle of residential development is acceptable. The proposal will meet identified housing need for the PUA as set out in the Core Strategy. The principle of the development is therefore acceptable and accords with adopted policies.

The addition of one dwelling over the previously approved scheme is acceptable and is an efficient use of vacant land in a sustainable location.

It is considered that the design and layout of the site is acceptable in relation to the character of the locality and in relation to the residential amenities of adjoining residents.

Appropriate conditions regarding highways and flood mitigation measures are recommended.

The three dimensions of sustainable development have been considered (economic, social and environmental) as set out in the NPPF and the proposal would provide housing contributing to the quality and choice of housing in Glenfield.

Accordingly this application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the proposed conditions.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

15/0115/OUT Registered Date Westleigh Developments Ltd21 January 2015

Proposed residential development for up to 60 dwellings including access (outline)

Land off Denman Lane, Huncote

Report Author: Debra Harrison, Planning Officer


RECOMMENDATION THAT APPLICATION 15/0115/OUT BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANTS ENTERING INTO EITHER A SECTION 106 AGREEMENT OR UNILATERAL UNDERTAKING TO SECURE THE FOLLOWING:-

1. On-site open space to be maintained by management company2. Affordable Housing provision to be agreed3. Education contribution to be agreed4. Library contribution to be agreed5. Highways contribution to be agreed 6. NHS contribution to be agreed7. Leicestershire Constabulary contribution to be agreed


1. Statutory outline condition2. List of approved plans3. Details to be submitted 4. No approval to illustrative layout5. Permission conveys approval to dwellings not exceeding two storeys6. Materials to be agreed in writing7. Landscaping scheme to be carried out8. Exact position and finished floor levels to be agreed9. Details of development to comply with LCC highways design standards10. Details of the design for off-site highway works to the Huncote Road/Coventry

Road junction to be submitted and agreed and completed11. A maximum of five dwellings to be accessed off the proposed Forest Road

access point12. Minimum internal garage dimensions13. Construction management plan to be agreed14. Development to be carried out in complete accordance with the Great Crested

Newt mitigation measures set out in the Updated Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

15. Programme of archaeological work16. Surface water drainage scheme to be submitted and approved and

implemented in accordance with approved details17. Foul and surface water drainage details to be submitted and agreed

18. On site open space to be provided and equipped in accordance with a scheme and timetable to be submitted and agreed

NOTES TO COMMITTEE

POLICY


Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (Adopted February 2013)

Policy CS1 Strategy for Locating New DevelopmentPolicy CS2 Design of New DevelopmentPolicy CS5 Housing DistributionPolicy CS7 Affordable HousingPolicy CS8 Mix of HousingPolicy CS10 Transport InfrastructurePolicy CS11 Infrastructure, Services and Facilities to Support GrowthPolicy CS12 Planning Obligations and Developer ContributionsPolicy CS18 CountrysidePolicy CS19 Bio-diversity and Geo-diversityPolicy CS24 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development


Policy C2 Other Development in the Countryside Policy T6 Off Street Parking Provision

CONSULTATIONS

Blaby District Council, Housing Strategy – Have recommended the following mix of open market and affordable dwellings on this site:

Market Mix:Bed Size Strategic Housing Recommended

Market Housing MixLeicester & Leicestershire Strategic Housing Market

Assessment Recommendation1 bed houses/flats 0 0% 5-10%2 bed houses 15 33.33% *30-35%3 bed houses 18 40% 45-50%4+ houses 8 17.77% 10-15%2 bed bungalows 4 8.90% *30-35%Totals 45 100% 100%

Affordable Mix:TenureBed Size Strategic Housing

Recommended Affordable Housing Mix

Rent IntermediateLeicester &

Leicestershire Strategic Housing

Market Assessment Recommendation

1 bed 4 26.67% 4 0 35-40%

houses/flats2 bed houses 4 26.67% 3 1 *30-35%3 bed houses 4 26.67% 3 1 20-25%4 bed houses 1 6.66% 1 0 5-10%2 bed bungalows 2 13.33% 2 0 *30-35%Totals 15 100% 13 2 100%

Environment Agency – Recommended approval subject to the imposition of conditions.

Huncote Parish Council – Have objected to the proposed development on the following grounds:

“Huncote Parish Council is very much against continued development of the parish, but also has major concerns over the number and mix of the proposed dwellings and also on the proximity to Huncote recreation ground and asks that these be taken into account when the planning application is considered.

Notwithstanding our previous comments; from our letters relating to the previous application on this site for 71 then 67 dwellings (12/0138/1/OX) and the subsequent appeal (APP/T2405/A/13/2198620), which are all still believed to be relevant and appropriate, Huncote Parish Council wishes to add the following comments, these are:

1. Objection: We do not believe the reduction of properties from 67 to 60 will have any significant impact on the development in relation to its appropriateness.

2. Objection: While the Fosse Villages Neighbourhood Plan does not yet have final sign-off approval, there is significant potential to damage public opinion about the potential for the project and gaining their cooperation in determining how development should be placed. We believe that this should be given greater significance, as losing the public at this stage will have greater knock-on effects for future development possibilities. [Page 44 (Developing) Core Strategy/NPPF 214/216]

3. Traffic and Highways issues:-

There will almost certainly be Highways issues with the development as the portion of the site which fronts onto Forest Road will come right up to the approved speed limit area, determined by Leicestershire County Council's Highways department.

3.1 Objection: Extra houses will mean increased traffic on an already busy Forest Road / Denman Lane, where vehicles can struggle to pass at the best of times and parking is already a problem. Using the County Council formula for calculating traffic movements generated by the new development (based upon there being 60 private dwellings) the additional traffic movements will be up to 330 per week, on a road which is already very busy for present traffic flows to/from the primary school (Denman Lane) and has four highly used junctions within less than 70 yards from the Denman Lane/Forest Road junction, as well as individual property, farm and cemetery access.

3.2 Objection: The road network in Huncote, particularly in the Forest Road area is already overloaded. This development will cause considerable disruption, particularly during the development stage, and we fear that in the long term the additional traffic could cause problems particularly at the Forest Road/Denman Lane junction, and also at the Forest Road/Sportsfield Lane/Compton Drive/Field View Close (09/0328/1/PX) junctions. Access for emergency vehicles also needs to be considered.

The kerbside opposite the existing field entrance off Denman Lane is regularly used for vehicle parking, making it significantly disruptive to any potential junction to this site and unsafe to motorists.

3.3 Objection: The 30 mph speed limit signs on Forest Road are currently at the development access point. To keep only one sign would make this limit at best questionable as well as unenforceable and possibly illegal. To move both signs, arguments can be made both for moving the signs further into Huncote, and further out of Huncote. Such a move should involve consultation with several bodies; the Parish Council, residents, non-resident road users, highway authorities, the Police and other emergency services and not hidden as a small part of a planning application. As far as we can tell it has not even been mentioned in the application, whether the developers did not realise, in which case there is a lack of attention to detail, or whether this omission is part of a hidden agenda we do not know.

3.4 Objection: The location of the 30 mph/national speed limit causes concern in relation to the position of the proposed driveway access to properties from Forest Road. The indicated access point is outside the existing 30 mph area, and we believe adding yet another access point on Forest Road where there are already Denman Lane/Sportsfield Lane/Compton Drive/Field View Close (09/0328/1/PX) junctions, along with farm, Cemetery and numerous property access within less than 100 yards would be reckless at best if not negligent on the impact on public safety when considering an outline proposal.

3.5 Objection: Public transport is presently under further review by the bus companies. We believe that the expectation for these services to still remain for any future new residents is increasingly less optimistic, reducing sustainability, and should be given due consideration. [Core Strategy/PPS1/NPPF 31, 32, 34, 39]

3.6 Objection: With the redevelopment of The Pavilion, including adding the new gym facility and construction of the new BMX track about to begin in April 2015, and likely to draw significant numbers of competitors and riders on a regular basis, traffic around the Forest Road area will be considerably increased with construction and facility use traffic. To allow a further development of this size to take place at the same time would cause severe traffic problems and disruption to residents and those using the Pavilion.

Transport Issues 4. Objection: We do not believe the stated figures for the number of vehicle movements to be accurate at the time the development will be built as Parish Council figures have already drawn County Highway assessments into question, and there will be a significant increase in vehicle traffic due to other projects (Jelson

development 11/0133/1OX, and two additional properties on Langley Close) which will only increase the levels of traffic movements.

5. Objection: This application proposes a significant number of residents will use bicycles on pre-existing paths through the fields adjacent to the proposed development site. Presently there are very few (if any) residents who make a similar journey, to anticipate new residents to do so could easily be described as unrealistic.

6. Objection: Settlements have to be sustainable by public transport services. We are sure you will agree the bus services as they are at the moment make us hardly sustainable and further residents will just make the area even less sustainable. [Core Strategy/NPPF].

7. Objection: There are limited local employment opportunities accessible by public transport. [PPS1] Those who must work shifts are almost certain to have difficulty accessing convenient public transport.

8. Objection: The Inspectors report for APP/T2405/A/13/2198620 - Proposed residential development for 67 dwellings, associated infrastructure, open space and landscaping (Outline) - Land off Denman Lane, Huncote, Leicestershire (Updated scheme) - Easting: 4518110 Northing: 2978690 pointed out that the development was unsustainable due to the unrealistic expectation of residents to use public transport and not the car. It would conflict with the aim of CS Policy CS10 to reduce the need to travel by private car by locating new development so that people can access services and facilities without having to rely on it. (Appeal Decision APP/T2405/A/13/2198620 para 15-20, CS10-xi)

Implications for local services 9. We believe the volume of traffic from this site along Forest Road will have a detrimental impact to the safety of pedestrians wishing to cross from the Denman Lane side of the road to access Huncote Cemetery and the facilities at the Pavilion on Forest Road, and with an equal impact of residents crossing in the opposite direction to access Huncote Community Primary School Academy Trust and the public open spaces on Denman Lane and those proposed within this development.

RECOMMENDATION: Developer is asked to provide a permanent Vehicle Activated Speed Sign (VAS) (i.e. Radarlux MiniVISOR 230) on Forest Road, (outside the development) to highlight motorists speed to them as they enter/exit the village, and maintain a record of vehicle movements, in the hope of reducing potential incidents between vehicles and pedestrians.

RECOMMENDATION: Developer is asked to provide a safe pedestrian crossing across Forest Road, to further mitigate potential incidents between vehicles and pedestrians, and provide a safe route for those accessing village amenities.

10. Objection: The development will lead to further strain on already overstretched medical practices in the area.

11. Comment: Huncote Parish Council believes the proposed scale of development would be better suited to an area within the Principal Urban Area (PUA) than a non-

PUA location. The density of this proposed development is higher than the average for the area. We consider the increase to be significantly higher, particularly in view of the volume of house extensions in place in Huncote to be unacceptable.

Impact on natural habitat 12. Observation: Although the new dwellings will likely be more energy efficient than some of the existing dwellings elsewhere in the village, we believe that there will be an increased usage on gas, electricity, water (see 11.1 above) and drains services. Have the suppliers been made aware of this proposed development, and will the supplies be adequate for the new development and also not affect existing dwellings in the vicinity?

13. Objection: Allowing the building to go ahead will have a detrimental effect on Protected Wildlife in the area, with the fields proposed for building currently allowing regular sightings of Barn Owls, Tawny Owls, Sparrow Hawks, Buzzards, Red Kite, Lapwings (on RSPB Red list), Bats, Great Crested Newts (protected) and other wildlife.

14. Objection: The area is of a pleasant countryside nature adding amenity value to local properties and the surrounding area which will be decreased if this development happens. [Policy C1/C2]

15. Objection: Building on a “Greenfield Agricultural Site" directly contravenes DEFRA Policy for the development of food production as announced at the Oxford Farming Conference 2010.

General Issues 16. Objection: The quantity of properties for the site is believed to be too dense, for the size of the site, with a collection of 2-3 bedroom bungalows being seen as more desirable for the location. (CS1-i/ii, CS5-i/ii, CS7-i/ii, CS8-i/ii). Observation: As the Housing Needs Survey for Huncote, requested by Blaby District Council, has recently been completed, it is surprising that this has not been recognised as part of this plan. A further review following this consultation is believed to be more desirable.

17. Currently the area for proposed development is used as grazing fields for animals. It is proposed to replace this with sixty (60) dwellings. This is a high density development and, although at least partially compliant with latest national government guidelines, is a far higher density than elsewhere in Huncote. We believe this high density may cause problems with or would ask for assurance that full checks have been made of the following:-

11.1 Observation: Prior to recent developments, Huncote residents have had several problems of power cuts and outages. With the additional sixty dwellings on his site and the seventy-five at Narborough Road, more power will inevitably be used locally and unless additional improvements in the power supply are made, these are likely to make the situation worse, both for residents of the new dwellings and for other residents both in the local vicinity and possibly throughout Huncote, some of

whom are reporting suffering in light of the Quarry View Close/Duncan Avenue and Field View Close developments;

Additional factors you may also care to consider:

12. Objection: The proposed development is placed between the main recreation ground in Huncote on Critchlow Road/Denman Lane and the new recreation area on the illustrative master plan. The existing recreation ground generates considerable legitimate noise, both in the day-time and in the evenings. This noise is liable to cause disturbance and friction between the recreation ground users and the residents, when adding a second, new play area as part of these proposals. We believe the extent of this noise will be slightly reduced by the positioning of windows and bedrooms away from near direct view to the recreation ground(s).

12.1 Comment to require additional conditions should this application be approved: Should the application be approved, can we have an assurance that prospective new residents will be made aware of such potential noise, which is legitimate, before purchasing, leasing or renting such properties, and will have to sign a binding waver that there will be no complaints about such noise?

12.2 Comment to require additional conditions should this application be approved: When the detailed plans are drawn up, can we also have an assurance that they be designed so that windows and doors are positioned such that no views are available of the recreation ground(s) to avoid the potential of paedophiles being attracted to these properties?

12.3 Comment to require additional conditions should this application be approved: Any approval given for this application given by Blaby District Council should only be given where the full amount possible of S.106 monies are given for improving and maintaining play area equipment. Specific figures can be provided upon request.

13. Observation: The provision of schools, particularly at the primary level is currently adequate and can cope with extra population and children, and Huncote Parish Council appreciate the effort made by Blaby District Council to minimise disruption to current residents in the relocation.

14. Observation: In light of the Government targets for 2015 to improve broadband provision across the country, will fibre-optic cabling to the property be laid within the site, capable of 200MB+ services, from houses to the connection with Denman Lane/the nearest exchange to reduce the impact on residents and improve local broadband provision? [NPPF 29, 42-46].

15. Objection and Comment to require additional conditions should this application be approved: This application is for a far higher covering of the ground of buildings/roads/footpaths/tarmac or concrete parking areas than the area being replaced. Problems with drainage and flooding already exist in some adjacent areas both on Forest Road and on the recreation ground on Denman Lane/Critchlow Road and we fear that reducing the amount of land available to soak up high levels of rain could make this situation worse. We would like the developers to help us reduce the

impact of heavy rainfall on ground conditions within the existing recreation ground by improving drainage across Critchlow Road recreation ground and ensuring the current issues are not exacerbated by the proposed development.

16. Observation: This development will add some sixty additional dwellings, which will be around seven and a half per cent to the population of Huncote. This is significant to the village, and a majority of Huncote parishioners have shown significant objection to developments of this scale on this site, at meetings of the parish council.

17. Observation: We would ask that consideration be given to the problems many 1960’s developments face where high density development has been used and also that adequate provision be made for the storage of the five bins used for refuse and recycling in Blaby District.

18. Observation: It should also be pointed out that already extensive building work has been carried out in Earl Shilton, Elmesthorpe, Stoney Stanton and Broughton Astley, with more planned. This could eventually lead to one rather large block of built up area in the surrounding countryside, with further development detracting from Huncote’s rural location.

19. Comment to require additional conditions should this application be approved: We appreciate the layout has closed ends to the roads preventing it being used as a racetrack, though unless appropriate railings are installed on the footpath into the site from Denman Lane, this may still be possible on motorbikes. Pathways should not be made accessible to motorbikes.

20. Objection: Parking provision is included in the application for 127 cars and 60 cycles (equivalent to 2.11 spaces per dwelling for cars). As this is only an Outline application, it is not clear how these are to be allocated, whether each dwelling will definitely have a dedicated space or spaces, or whether it is to be a “free for all”. Particularly in view of the poor bus services in Huncote (which with County Council funding cuts is only likely to worsen) [NPPF 31, 32, 34, 39], and the high probability of most families or couples having two or more cars as well as those for visitors, will this parking provision be adequate? How will ‘overflow’ cars be accommodated? The adjacent roads, particularly Forest Road and Sportsfield Lane, already have problems with car parking with most houses being built before cars were the norm, and we fear this new development will add to an already severe congestion problem unless additional parking is provided in the area for cars not from the development.

20.1 Comment to require additional conditions should this application be approved: The proposed new development would cause additional disruption to funeral processions to the nearby Huncote Cemetery, adjacent the site on Forest Road, which could cause unnecessary stress and heart-break to those attempting to visit or bury their loved ones, laid to rest in the cemetery. Further parking in Forest Road, particularly in the area around the Cemetery, not parked in relation to visiting the cemetery, should not be allowed.

21. Observation: The area is very close to a former landfill site at the Pavilion, known to have considerable problems with methane. To build houses on it could be a major health risk to future residents of the development.

22. Comment to require additional conditions/financial contribution towards providing facility should this application beapproved: With the geography of Huncote being surrounded by quarries, it is very difficult to obtain suitable land for public buildings in Huncote such as a village hall or library. With the increase in population which will be caused by this development, we suggest that using a part of this area for some public amenity is included and the parish council be consulted on its design/ownership.

Following our previous correspondence on the planning proposal, and in anticipation that the above development will go before the Development Control Committee in March 2015, Huncote Parish Council would like to request the opportunity to address the committee in regards the application. Please inform us of the exact date and time of the Development Control Committee meeting when this application will be discussed.

The Parish Council will nominate Cllr Alec Knight to speak on its behalf, acknowledging the time limit of 5 minutes.

In addition to the comments submitted in our letter dated 22nd April 2011 (for application 11/0133/1/OX), the Parish Council would like to ensure we are still able to be considered for maximum appropriate Section 106 monies for this development should this proposal be approved.

The Council also reserves the right to make future comments if further applications are received in relation to this site.

Please note however the Parish Councils position on this application remains unchanged and we are very much against the proposal as outlined in our letter and we acknowledge that we are in receipt of a large number of copies of objections that have already been sent to Blaby District Council by parishioners of Huncote in response to this application.”

Leicestershire Fire and Rescue – Had no comments to make on this application.

Leicestershire County Council, Archaeology – Recommended approval subject to the imposition of reconditions.

Leicestershire County Council, Developer Contributions – Requested the following developer contributions:Education – Primary school requirement - £162,610.69Secondary school requirement - £167,142.19

Libraries – 1 bedroom houses/apartments @ £15.09 per house/apartment2+ bedroom houses/apartments @ £30.18 per house/apartment

1 bedroom student dwellings @ £10.06 per house/apartment.

Highways – Travel Packs; to inform new residents from first occupation what sustainable

travel choices are in the surrounding area (can be supplied by LCC at £52.85 per pack).

6 month bus passes, two per dwelling (2 application forms to be included in Travel Packs and funded by the developer); to encourage new residents to use bus services, to establish changes in travel behaviour from first occupation and promote usage of sustainable travel modes other than the car (can be supplied through LCC at (average) £350.00 per pass).

New/Improvements to 2 nearest bus stops (including raised and dropped kerbs to allow level access); to support modern bus fleets with low floor capabilities. At £3263.00 per stop.

Information display cases at 1 nearest bus stop; to inform new residents of the nearest bus services in the area. At £120.00 per display.

Contribution towards equipping the nearest bus stop(s) with Real Time Information (RTI) system; to assist in improving the nearest bus service with this facility, in order to provide a high quality and attractive public transport choice to encourage modal shift. At a total of £5,840.

Leicestershire County Council, Ecology – Made the following comments:

“The land has previously been the subject of a planning application (12/0138/1/OX), which I objected to on the grounds of loss of species-rich grassland that met our Local Wildlife Site criteria. The species-richness was confirmed during a visit I made to the site in summer 2012. The grassland habitat on site has been resurveyed since, by Delta Simons, and an updated survey has been submitted. They did not record the same species-richness that I did 2.5 years ago, despite surveying the site in summer. It is unusual for sites to lose so many species in such a short time, and I cannot accept the results of this survey until I have surveyed the site myself, before making any final recommendations. I also note that at the time of DS survey (late August 2014), two of the indicator species (Lady’s smock and Pignut) are unlikely to be found, as they tend to vanish from the sward later on in summer. A spring survey would pick them up. Unfortunately February is too early for wildflower surveys of grasslands – the earliest I could survey the land and be reasonably confident that most species had been picked up would be in April – but in the next few weeks it may be possible to detect the two species I have listed above, and I will visit the site to check these out. There are known great crested newts present in the near vicinity, which were discovered by surveys done by Delta Simons in 2011. They have not resurveyed the site in support of this application, and have proposed the same mitigation. When the last application was being considered, there was considerable confusion regarding a pond on the site itself, at the northern end of the dividing hedge between the two fields. Delta Simons had not found the pond during their GCN surveys, dry pond, but local residents reported the presence of a pond there, holding water during summer 2012, and there is a pond shown on our OS maps. I don’t think was ever satisfactorily resolved, and as the issue is likely to be raised again by local residents,

I feel it would be helpful for DS to confirm whether or not they have assessed this pond for GCN. When I visit the site myself, I will also be able to check. It is important, because it could affect the layout of the site and the arrangement of the public open space. Delta Simons briefly looked at ponds during their Phase 1 Habitat resurvey, dated 28th August 2014, and noted that several were dry. This is not unexpected in late summer, and does not affect the chances of GCNs being present; in fact, it is known that GCNs are more likely to survive in ponds that do dry out later in the year, as this inhibits fish populations, which predate GCN larvae. Delta Simons have stated that updated GCN surveys will need to be undertaken as the subject of a planning condition. This is against government regulation, as set out in ODPM06/2005, and in not acceptable. However, as it currently stands, I believe that there is enough information present in order to make a decision on the impact on GCNs, and (for the purposes of planning) I do not feel that further surveys are needed, as long as the proposed GCN mitigation is made into a condition. However, as it currently stands, an EPS license will be needed to facilitate the development, and should permission be granted, updated surveys will be needed prior to site clearance etc. It is important that the missing pond is included in the update surveys, if it is still present and holding water in Spring. I would like to make a holding objection to this application, pending my site visit to assess the quality of grassland and the presence or otherwise of the pond on site.”

Leicestershire County Council, Footpaths Officer – Awaiting comments.

Leicestershire County Council, Highways – Recommended approval subject to the imposition of recommended conditions and the developer entering into a legal agreement to provide developer contributions.

Leicestershire County Council, Planning – Had no objections to the proposed development.

NHS – Requested a developer contribution of £25,009.92.

Leicestershire Police Constabulary – Requested a developer contribution of £21,332.

Severn Trent Water – Awaiting comments.

Representations

126 letters of representation have been received objecting to the proposed development on the following grounds:

Existing difficulty accessing health facilities; Traffic impact and increased congestion; Highway safety; Village has limited facilities/amenities;

Existing transport links not adequate; Public transport services have been reduced; Noise from construction; Dust from construction; Spoil the countryside and landscape; Existing difficulties accessing Denman Lane due to parking; Impact on wildlife; Lorries and construction traffic not suitable for Denman Lane; Value of existing dwellings will decrease; The original application on this site was refused by the Planning Inspector; Inadequate public footpaths in the village, unlit; Great crested newts; Local schools cannot cope with anymore children; Huncote has already been subject to two housing developments, there is no

need for more development; The recent new developments need time to “bed in”; If Westleigh don’t sell the houses at market rates they may then sell them to a

Housing Association; The proposed development will have a negative impact on local shops; The reduction in houses does not affect the sustainability of this application; Will impact on the quality of the school; The land is designated as countryside, building on it would be contrary to

current planning guidance and is in excess of the core plan requirements; Lubbesthorpe has been approved and will provide housing and infrastructure

within 4 miles of Huncote; The application site is ridge and furrow land; Loss of agricultural land; Flooding; Rarely see a police presence in the village; Proposed housing do not include bungalows; There is no village hall; Local shops are inadequate; Lack of privacy for nearby houses.

One letter has also been received in support of the application on the following grounds:

There is a need for new houses throughout the UK.

Relevant History

App No: P. 5070Development: Erection of dwellings and formation of accessOutcome: Refused 01/05/1972

Appeal Dismissed 14/06/1974

App No: 76/1699/1/OXDevelopment: Residential Development

Outcome: Refused 15/01/1980

App No: 91/0837/1/OXDevelopment: Proposed residential development and construction of relief roadOutcome: Refused 19/09/1991

App No: 09/0104/1/PYDevelopment: Retention of two field accessesOutcome: Approved 01/04/2009

App No: 12/0138/1/OXDevelopment: Proposed residential development for 67 dwellings, associated

infrastructure, open space and landscaping (outline)Outcome: Refused 04/02/2013

Appeal dismissed 04/06/2014

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Proposal

This planning application seeks outline planning permission for the development of up to 60 dwellings, including access. All matters other than access are reserved.

The application site extends along the northern edge of Huncote, on the eastern side of Forest Road and is surrounded by open countryside to the north and east and adjoins an existing development. Forest Road provides the western boundary to the site and is the approach into the village from the north. The site comprises two fields which have been used for grazing. Along the joint northern/southern boundary of the two fields is the route of public footpath V64. The application site area is 3.4 ha (8.5 acres).

An indicative layout has been submitted, showing the main proposed access off Denman Lane and a small “cul-de-sac” style access off Forest Road. The illustrative layout also shows a surface water attenuation area to the east of the site and an area of public open space with a play area located in the centre of the site along the northern boundary. The illustrative layout also shows proposed planting along the northern and southern boundaries. However, Members must note that this submitted layout is not binding at this stage, and if outline approval is granted the layout would be the subject of a Reserved Matters application and that layout may not ultimately reflect the currently submitted indicative proposal.

The applicants have also confirmed that 25% of the proposed dwellings would be affordable units. In terms of heights, the applicants propose that the dwellings will be 2 storey buildings.

The application site is located in Flood Zone 1.

Supporting Documents The applicant submitted the following documents in support of the application:

Design and Access Statement;Accessibility Statement;Illustrative Masterplan;Updated Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and previous ecological assessments;Arboricultural Report;Archaeological Desk based Assessment;Archaeological Evaluation; Geophysical Survey Report;Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment;Combined Phase I Desk Study and Phase II Exploratory Investigation;Drainage Strategy Report;Flood Risk Assessment;Affordable Housing Statement.

The applicants have also confirmed their willingness to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to secure, where appropriate, any Developer Contribution requests.




The NPPF indicates that proposals which accord with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposals that conflict should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is a material consideration in determining planning applications.

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision taking this means, unless material considerations indicate otherwise:

Approving development that accords with the development plan without delay.Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless:

Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the NPPF as a whole; or


To boost significantly the supply of housing, Local Planning Authorities should identify a supply of deliverable sites sufficient to provide 5 years worth of housing

with an additional buffer of 5%, or 20% where there has been a record of persistent under delivery.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN


The adopted Core Strategy (February 2013) is now part of the Development Plan for the district of Blaby and the following policies are relevant to the proposed development:

Policy CS1 Strategy for Locating New Development

Policy CS1 encourages new development to take place within and in areas adjoining the Principal Urban Area (PUA) of Leicester. Outside the PUA, development will be focussed within and adjoining Blaby and the Larger Central Villages. Lower levels of growth will be allowed in the Rural Centre Medium Central Villages and Smaller Villages. Huncote is classified as a Medium Central Village. Policy CS2 Design of New Development

Policy CS2 seeks to ensure that a high quality environment is achieved in all new development proposals, respecting distinctive local character and contributing towards creating places of high architectural and urban design quality. The design of new development should also be appropriate to its context.

Policy CS5 Housing Distribution

Policy CS5 aims to focus new development in the most appropriate locations, the District Council seeks to distribute housing by settlement in accordance with the figures contained within the Core Strategy. Huncote is classed as one of the “Medium Central Villages” and has some key services and facilities and limited employment facilities. The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) identified potential for significant residential development in the long term and Policy CS5 states that the Medium Central Villages combined have a minimum housing requirement of 815 dwellings to find.

Policy CS7 Affordable Housing

Policy CS7 requires developments of 15 or more dwellings to provide a minimum of 25 % of the total number of dwellings on site as affordable housing.

Policy CS8 Mix of Housing

Policy CS8 seeks to ensure that developments of 10 or more dwellings should provide an appropriate mix of housing type and size to serve the needs of existing and future households in the District.

Policy CS10 Transport Infrastructure

Policy CS10 sets out the Council’s preferred approach to locating new development where people can access services and facilities without reliance on ‘private motor vehicles’.

Policy CS11 Infrastructure, services and facilities to support growth

Policy CS11 seeks to ensure that all new development is supported by good access to infrastructure, services and facilities to support growth.

Policy CS12 Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions

Policy CS12 seeks to ensure that the requirements for infrastructure, services and facilities arising from any development will be sought in accordance with the Council’s latest Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions SPD.

The proposal will generate the need to provide financial contributions towards essential infrastructure, services and facilities and the request for financial contributions from consultees are details above. Developer contributions are required where necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, where it is directly related to the development and is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Members should note that Leicestershire Constabulary has requested a developer contribution of £21,332. However, it is not considered that the request is fully compliant with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations. The recommendation on this application includes provision for a development contribution towards all CIL compliant capital infrastructure for Policing necessitated by the Development.

Policy CS18 Countryside

Policy CS18 states that within areas designated as Countryside, planning permission will not be granted for built development which would have a significantly adverse effect on the character and appearance of the landscape. The need to retain countryside will be balanced against the need to provide new development in the most sustainable locations.

Policy CS19 Bio-diversity and Geo-diversity

Policy CS19 seeks to ensure that the District’s natural environment is protected and enhanced.

Policy CS22 Flood Risk Management

Development is directed to locations at the lowest risk of flooding, giving priority to flood zone 1. The use of Sustainable Drainage Systems to ensure that flood risk is not increased on site or elsewhere is also encouraged in new developments.

Policy CS24 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development



Although the Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013) has been adopted, a number of policies from the Blaby District Local Plan (1999) continue to be saved. The following policy is of relevance to this application.

Policy C2 Countryside

Policy C2 states that within areas designated as Countryside, planning permission will not be granted for built development which would have a significantly adverse effect on the character and appearance of the landscape.

Policy T6 Off Street Parking Provision

Policy T6 requires new development to provide a minimum of two off street car parking spaces per two and three bed dwelling and three off street car parking spaces per four + bed dwelling.



As identified on the Proposals Map, the application site is located in the countryside on the edge of the built up area of Huncote.

Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy and Policy C2 of the Local Plan does not permit development in the countryside which would have a significant adverse effect on the appearance or character of the countryside. However, the need to retain countryside will be balanced against the need to provide new development in the most sustainable locations.

The application site is not subject to any landscape designation but falls within the “Thurlaston Rolling Farmland” landscape (as identified within the ‘Blaby District Character Assessment) which extends from Kirby Muxloe to the north through to the northern edge of Huncote to the south. In the section relating to the landscape character description, reference is made to there being remnants of ridge and furrow

within rougher ground and grazing land. The application land is not recognised as having any significant landscape value.

The application was accompanied by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment which concluded that:

“The proposed development with mitigation measures will have a limited effect on views from the surrounding areas due to the retention of the majority of existing mature hedgerow and tree vegetation along with the nature of the site at the edge of the existing settlement of Huncote.

The development will also have a limited effect on the existing landscape Resource including trees, hedgerows, public rights of way and designated landscapes. The proposed development will affect the landscape character of the land to be developed, but will not significantly alter the landscape character of the surrounding areas”

Furthermore, the Planning Inspector in his appeal decision (dated 4 June 2014) on this site concluded that “no material harm would arise to the character or appearance of the surrounding countryside”.

It is therefore considered by your Officers that this development would not significantly harm the character and appearance of this area of countryside.

The development of land in the countryside also needs to be balanced against the need to provide development in the most sustainable locations.

The housing requirements for the District derive from the Core Strategy which seeks to ensure housing needs are met in the most sustainable way through a principle of ‘urban concentration’. New development should be focused within and adjoining the PUA of Leicester, however, provision is made for the development needs of settlements outside the PUA.

Policy CS5 seeks to focus new development in the most appropriate locations and seeks to distribute housing by settlement. Huncote is classified in the Core Strategy as a Medium Central Village, along with Littlethorpe, Cosby, Croft and Sapcote. The distribution of housing throughout the Core Strategy is based on the ability of settlements to accommodate additional growth.

Notwithstanding what the previous inspector determined, the Core Strategy identified Huncote as being capable of accepting new dwellings on the basis of the service and facilities it has to offer and is considered to be sustainable location for residential development.

Medium Central Villages as a whole have a minimum housing requirement of 815 dwellings to find in the period 2006 – 2029. There is a remaining balance of approximately 22 dwellings to find in the ‘Medium Central Villages’ area to meet this minimum requirement. The further development of dwellings in Huncote would therefore meet and exceed the minimum housing requirement for the ‘Medium Central Villages’ by 38 dwellings. However, the exceedance of the minimum

housing requirement by 38 dwellings is not considered to significantly and demonstrably conflict with the overarching aims of Policies CS1 and CS5 of the Core Strategy.

Taking the above into consideration it is the opinion of your Officers that the principle of the development of this site subject to other material considerations is acceptable and would comply with Polices CS1, CS5 and CS18 of the Core Strategy.

Highways

Access is included for consideration in the determination of this application and the main paint of vehicular access into the application site is proposed off Denman Lane. The Local Highways Authority have advised that in its view the residual cumulative impacts of development can be mitigated and are not considered severe and have recommended approval subject to condition requiring off site highway works to be carried out at the junction of Huncote Road and Coventry Road (B4114) in accordance with drawing no. 732/101 (Appendix G of the Transport Assessment) and the developer entering into a legal agreement to secure developer contributions.

Ecology

Leicestershire County Council Ecology department raised some queries on this site regarding its grassland habitat, however the application site is not subject to any wildlife designations therefore this is not a material consideration in the assessment of this application.

Leicestershire County Council are satisfied that adequate information has been submitted to assess the impact of the proposed development on Great Crested Newts and have recommended that a condition is attached regarding a Great Crested newt mitigation strategy.

Archaeology

Leicestershire County Council Archaeology department have confirmed that the proposed development is unlikely to impact significantly on buried archaeological remains, however there are concerns over the loss of ridge and furrow earthworks.

It has been recommended that should planning permission be permitted, the ridge and furrow earthworks should be retained within the Public Open Space and subject to conditions requiring an Earthwork Survey to be carried out.

Developer Contributions

A number of developer contribution requests have been received. Those that are CIL compliant will be supported by the District Planning Authority and sought through a S106 Legal Agreement with developers.

Conclusion

The application site is a green field site located in the countryside on the edge of Huncote, which is a medium central village and is a sustainable location in the non-PUA. The site is not subject to any landscape designations and it is considered that the proposed development would not be significantly harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside and would not conflict with Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy (2013) or saved Policy C2 of the Local Plan (1999).

There is a remaining balance of approximately 22 dwellings to find to meet the minimum housing requirement of the “Medium Central Villages” area and whilst this development would exceed this figure by 38 dwellings, it is not considered to significantly and demonstrably conflict with the overarching aims of Policies CS1 and CS5 of the Core Strategy.

There are no technical objections to this application and subject to the imposition of conditions and the developer entering into a legal agreement to secure developer contributions this outline planning application is recommended for approval.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

15/0176/OUT Registered Date Manor Oak Homes

4 February 2015

Proposed residential development (max 165 dwellings) associated landscaping and public open space with vehicular access from Cork Lane (Outline) (Re-submission)

Land off Cork Lane, Glen Parva

Report Author: Ian Davies, Development Management Team Leader


RECOMMENDATIONTHAT APPLICATION 15/0176/OX BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANTS ENTERING INTO EITHER A SECTION 106 AGREEMENT OR UNILATERAL UNDERTAKING TO SECURE THE FOLLOWING:

1. Provision of 25% affordable housing2. On-site open space maintenance contribution or an agreed maintenance

programme3. A financial contribution to Leicestershire County Council towards

Library facilities4. A financial contribution to Leicestershire County Council towards

education provision5. All CIL compliant infrastructure for Policing necessitated by the

development6. A financial contribution to provide Travel Packs to inform the new

residents about what sustainable travel choices there are in the surrounding area. 6 month bus passes (2 application forms per dwelling) to encourage new residents to use bus services, Travel Plan monitoring fee and contribution towards MOVA system

7. Contribution towards Air Quality monitoring and measures for improvement

8. A financial contribution to NHS England towards healthcare provision


CONDITIONS

1. Statutory outline condition2. Reserved Matters to be submitted3. Materials to be agreed in writing4. Scheme for foul and surface water drainage to be submitted5. Detailed plans of the Scheme for Sustainable Drainage to be submitted as

part of any Reserved Matters submission6. Finished ground and floor levels to be agreed7. No approval to illustrative layout8. Existing boundary trees and hedgerows to be retained to be protected during

development

9. Open space and play areas to be provided and equipped in accordance with a timetable to be agreed

10. Development not to commence until conditions 11 and 12 have been complied with

11. Site investigation and risk assessment and ground remediation strategy to be completed and submitted for approval and subsequently implemented and monitored

12. Reporting of unexpected contamination13. Construction Method Statement to be submitted, agreed and subsequently

adhered to14. Grassland and badger surveys to be undertaken and submitted as part of

Reserved Matters submission15. Approved access works to be completed prior to first occupation16. Development to be designed in accordance with current County Highway

standards17. Car parking to be provided in accordance with adopted standards18. Residential Travel Plan to be submitted19. Details of noise mitigation measures to be incorporated into the new dwellings

to form part of the Reserved Matters submission

NOTES TO COMMITTEE

Policy


National Planning Policy Framework (2012)National Planning Practice Guidance


Policy CS1 – Strategy for Locating New DevelopmentPolicy CS2 – Design of New DevelopmentPolicy CS5 – Housing DistributionPolicy CS7 – Affordable HousingPolicy CS8 – Mix of HousingPolicy CS10 – Transport InfrastructurePolicy CS11 – Infrastructure, Services and Facilities to Support GrowthPolicy CS12 – Planning Obligations and Developer ContributionsPolicy CS14 – Green InfrastructurePolicy CS15 – Open Space, Sport and RecreationPolicy CS21 – Climate ChangePolicy CS22 – Flood Risk ManagementPolicy CS23 – WastePolicy CS24 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Blaby District Local Plan (BDLP)

Policy T3 – Highways Standards Parking and Service ProvisionPolicy T6 – Parking and ServicingPolicy L4 – Recreation, Sport, Leisure and TourismPolicy M2 – Unstable LandPolicy M3 - Contamination

Other Supporting Documents

Blaby District Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions (2010)Housing Mix and Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2013)Blaby Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment (2008)

Consultations

Blaby District Council Environmental Health – Has no objections subject to the imposition of planning conditions concerning ground investigation and remediation and noise and has commented as follows:

“NoiseThe submitted report (REC 90419r1) has considered the noise sources that are likely to impact on the proposed development and is acceptable. I recommend that the principles of mitigation given in section 5 are incorporated into the detailed design of the proposed scheme if it is taken forward, with details being submitted to the Local Planning Authority for prior approval, quality installation and maintenance for the life of the consent.

Air QualityI have re-considered the submitted Air Quality Assessment (reference REC Report: 33691r3 Issued: 25th February 2014) and found it to be acceptable in terms of methodology.

The document indicates a likely small increase in levels of nitrogen dioxide at Receptor Point 1 (located to assess the impact on AQMA 4B) (table 18 on page 21 of the Report). I consider that it is appropriate to seek a commuted sum for air quality improvement measures related to AQMA 4B. Since my comments made on the original application have been working with Leicestershire County Council Highways officers on traffic management measures that could improve air quality in AQMA 4B. Rather than limit the scope of such a commuted sum to air quality monitoring, it would be preferable to include such highway works;

3 other Receptors (R9, R10, and R11) are shown in table 18 as being subjected to a small increase in levels of nitrogen dioxide that causes those locations to be closer to the Air Quality Objective (40 microgrammes per cubic metre). Consideration should be given to seeking a commuted sum to fund additional air quality monitoring to determine the actual impact of the development if taken forward. A similar approach to that associated with the Lubbesthorpe development may be useful.

Contaminated Land / Landfill Gas

Many thanks for passing the report prepared by RSK for Manor Oak Homes Ltd. (Project no. 26244, date January 2015) to me for comments.

I have considered the report, particularly Chapter 4 (Conclusions and Recommendations)(pages 20 to 22) and Appendix I (Detailed Site Investigation and Remediation Proposal).

My advice to Members of the Development Control Committee remains as stated previously, namely that the principle of developing the land for housing as proposed is acceptable. The additional detail in Appendix I provides further robustness for this approach.

Suitably worded conditions would be needed to retain control over such development, including a requirement for a site investigation, remediation method statement, validation report and appropriate works if unexpected contamination is found.”

Blaby District Council Principal Housing Strategy Officer – Raises no objections to the scheme subject to the provision of affordable housing and an appropriate mix of market housing.

Blaby District Council Waste Operations Manager – No objections.

Canal & River Trust – Has no objections to the scheme but makes comments in relation to any future proposals to extend the existing Sustrans national cycle route.

Glen Parva Parish Council – Objects for the following reasons:

“ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

1. Potential contamination of the site as a former landfill site.2. Residents have personal recollections of types of waste tipped at the site.

(Mrs W Kilner of 3, Cork Lane).3. There is insufficient evidence available to demonstrate that the site is safe

enough for development.4. Clarity required about length of time required for site to remain dormant prior

to any development.5. Extensive research required into bore holes and soil testing in order to ensure

safety of the site.6. Proposed dwellings to be built upon rafts – concerns about this aspect.7. Other dwellings elsewhere in the parish were built adjacent to a landfill site,

such as Woodbank and Sonning Way and residents still experience subsidence and other related problems after many years.

8. Developments should not be allowed to be constructed ion flood plain land.9. Potential flooding of surrounding area from surface water “run-off”.10. Air pollution.11. Flooding – impact on River Sence.12. Condition of ditches adjacent to PROW Z109 rear of Westdale Avenue.13. Condition and status of area of land retained adjacent to existing houses on

Navigation Drive development.

14. Adoption of land once proposed development is completed. (Navigation Drive estate still unadopted 11/12 years after development completed).

15. Concerns about raised level of land and visual impact on existing properties on Westdale Avenue.

16. Need to protect existing open areas and Local Nature Reserve for the ecological value to the local community and environment.

17. Full and detailed environmental impact assessment required.18. Proposed illustration of development by Framptons is misleading to members

of the public in terms of layout and design of dwellings.19. All downed war aircraft in Leicestershire was buried on this site. Radioactive

chemicals would have been used in the cockpit dials – how will this be dealt with?

20. How will monitoring be conducted whilst removal and compacting of the ground takes place?

TRANSPORT & HIGHWAY ISSUES

1. Impact on A426 Bus Corridor and Leicester Road into the city of Leicester.2. Impact on existing side roads such as Glenville Avenue, Howard Road, Cork

Lane and Westview Avenue, which were built many years ago to serve the immediate houses even prior to the construction of the Featherby Drive estate.

3. Concerns about safety aspect of bus corridor lanes for vehicles, cyclists and risks to pedestrians.

4. There should be an alternative access route provided by developer such as Newbridge Road, Brickyard Hill or Wharf Way.

5. Loss of street scene along Glenville Avenue if this road is required to be widened.

6. Clarity required on numbers of vehicle movements for the proposed development. Government policy encourages the need for more people to use public transport, hence the funding for the new bus corridor. However, this proposed development is not within a reasonable walking distance to a bus stop.

7. Limited number of bus shelters on existing A426 route.8. Concerns about construction and maintenance vehicles during the site

construction using existing side roads.9. New access road should be constructed prior to the commencement of any

works on the site.10. A detailed traffic/highway impact assessment is required.11. The proposed development in Franklyn Fields in Aylestone Leicester will also

heavily impact on to the A426 Leicester Road and Bus Corridor.12. Consideration should be given for the provision of the railway station at Blaby

to be reinstated.13. The proposed development will impact on the SUSTRANS National Cycle

route that runs between Glen Parva and a section of that travels through Needham Avenue onto Cork lane and down Brickyard Hill on to Newbridge Road. The increased traffic will be a safety hazard for cyclists, equestrians and pedestrians that use this facility.

14. There is a home for the elderly on Cork Lane (Cork House) as well as bungalows for the elderly at the top of Cork Lane, adjacent to the top of Z109

PROW. Additional traffic will have an adverse impact on these vulnerable members of society.

15. 165 dwellings will attract a high number of vehicles which will be travelling excessively at peak times. This will have an adverse impact on the safety of school children and other pedestrians and cyclists at peak school times.

16. Will there be any parking restrictions on Glenville Avenue and Westview Avenue?

17. Only having one entry/exit point to the site will cause traffic and safety problems.

18. Vehicle Speed Measurement equipment recording instruments may have been improperly positioned therefore giving incorrect information. “The site should not be near junctions (unless readings are being taken in connection with improvements to the junction) or bus stops. Situations where the radar beam may be obstructed by parked cars, or where vehicles are likely to be accelerating or braking, should also be avoided. Except at very light flows, it is not advisable to measure the speeds of vehicles on the far side of a single carriageway” – taken from The Highways Agency document for Vehicle Speed Measurement on All Purpose Roads.

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES

1. Impact on existing school and education provision and parking2. Impact on GP and Dentist surgeries3. Need for affordable housing as part of the proposed development4. Housing figures for the next 5 years have already been met within Blaby

District.5. Housing figures for the Principal Urban Area (PUA) in Blaby District has

already been met by the New Lubbesthorpe development and other large developments within Blaby District.

SECTION 106 MONIES

1. Impact on Glen Hills Primary School and South Wigston High School.2. Impact on community facilities at Glen Parva War Memorial Hall.3. Impact of library services at Glen Hills Library.4. Impact on play area and equipment at Dorothy Avenue Playing Field.5. Impact on Local Nature Reserve Site and local network of footpaths.6. Impact on medical services i.e. GP, Dentist etc.”

Environment Agency – Has no objections subject to the imposition of planning conditions.

Leicestershire Constabulary – Has requested a contribution of £53,170 due to the lack of capacity in existing police infrastructure to accommodate the population growth and associated demands occasioned by the development.

Leicestershire County Council Archaeology – Has no comments to make.

Leicestershire County Council Ecology – Requires additional grassland and badger surveys to be carried out prior to commencement of development.

Leicestershire County Education – A contribution of £598,004.30 is requested to accommodate the need generated by this development. This contribution would be used to improve, remodel or enhance existing facilities at South Wigston High School Academy and Countesthorpe Community College.

Leicestershire County Council Highways – Has no objections subject to the imposition of highway conditions.

Leicestershire County Libraries – A contribution of £4,980 is requested to provide additional materials for Glenhills Library.

Leicestershire County Minerals and Waste – Has no objections.

Leicestershire County Council Stepping Stones Project Manager – Has no objections.

Leicestershire County Waste Management – No contribution requested.

Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Services – No comments received.

Leicester City Council – Has no objections.

Natural England – Has no objections to the proposal.

Severn Trent Water – Comments awaited, however Members are reminded that in respect of the application, they raised no objections subject to the inclusion of a standard condition requiring drainage details to be submitted and agreed.

Whetstone Parish Council – Comments awaited.


91 representations have been received objecting and commenting on the development proposals.

The representations make comments on the following issues:

Nothing has changed since the previous refusal; The area has already had its fair share of development; Capacity of schools, health facilities and other amenities and infrastructure; Loss of countryside and recreational resource; Impact on flood protection land; Impact on wildlife; Air pollution; Noise pollution; Impact on residents’ quality of life; Increased traffic and construction traffic; Road capacity;

Unsuitable access; Overlooking and overshadowing; Safety of existing and future residents due to the contaminated land; Concerns over stability of ground.

Relevant History

App No: 14/0216/1/OXDevelopment: Proposed Residential Development (max 165 dwellings), Land

off Cork Lane, Glen Parva.Outcome: RefusedDate: 17 October 2014

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Proposal

The application site comprises of a total of 10.55 hectares of land which is currently used for agricultural (grazing) purposes. The site is within the Parish of Glen Parva and it is located to the south of Cork Lane and to the north of the residential estate on Navigation Drive that was constructed on the site of the former Blaby Brick Works. The application site lies outside the limits to development as defined on the Proposals Map of the Blaby District Local Plan (1999).

The application site was formerly used for the extraction of clay in association with the former Blaby Brickworks site. Following completion of the extraction, the site was used as a landfill site and was restored. Landfill uses ceased approximately 20 years ago.

This application seeks outline planning permission (with means of access included for approval at this stage) for the development of a maximum of 165 dwellings with open space and sustainable urban drainage system and associated infrastructure. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site would be gained via the existing field access on Cork Lane.

Due to the former use of the site as a landfill site, the application also proposes a comprehensive programme of ground investigation and ground remediation to prepare the land to allow the development to proceed in a structurally sound manner and to ensure that the development will not pose harm to human health for either existing adjacent residents nor future residents.

Supporting Documents In support of the application, the applicant has submitted the following documents: A Planning Statement;A Design and Access Statement;An illustrative layout;A Landscape Visual Impact Assessment;A Transport Assessment;

A Flood Risk Assessment;An Ecological Appraisal;A Noise Impact Assessment;A Ground Conditions/Contamination Report;An Air Quality Assessment;A Waste Management Plan;An Incoming Services Appraisal;A Statement of Community Involvement;An Arboricultural Method Statement;A Residential Travel Plan;An Affordable Housing Statement.

The applicants’ have also confirmed their willingness to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to secure, where appropriate, any Developer Contribution requests, i.e. affordable housing, public open space maintenance sums, highway improvements, education, etc.

Previous Decision

Members will recall that at the Development Control Committee meeting in October 2014, Members overturned Officer’s recommendation to approve outline application 14/0216/1/OX for the proposed residential development (max 165 dwellings) on land off Cork Lane, Glen Parva. Members refused planning permission for the following reason:

“The proposal is contrary to Policy M2 – Unstable Land and Policy M3 – Contamination of the Blaby District Local Plan (1999) and insufficient information has been submitted in respect of ground contamination issues.”

Policy M2 and Policy M3 state that planning permission will only be granted on land known or suspected to be either unstable or at risk from contamination where the District Council is satisfied that the proposed development can be undertaken safely. The applicant had submitted detailed ground and contamination reports and remediation proposals.

The Environmental Health Officer subsequently confirmed that these details were satisfactory and the site could be satisfactorily remediated and built upon.

The Environment Agency was also consulted on the application proposal and they formally confirmed that they had no objections to the principle of the development, subject to the imposition of conditions.

Notwithstanding the above advice, Members refused planning permission for the reason stated.



There are a number of themes which run through national guidance as expressed in the National Planning Policy Framework and these are generally in line with local policies expressed through the Development Plan. Key themes in the case of this application are that new development should be sustainable and the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed is encouraged.


The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) advises that local planning authorities should work with developers to find acceptable ways forward if there are concerns about land contamination. For example, planning permission can be granted subject to conditions in the light of the information currently available about contamination and the proposed remediation measures and standards. The NPPG clearly states that the responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.

The NPPG also clearly sets out how considerations of land contamination/remediation should be addressed through the planning application process, as illustrated in the flowchart below:

National Planning Policy Framework

This essential National Planning Policy Framework establishes the key principles for proactively delivering sustainable development through the development plan system and the determination of planning applications. The emphasis is that development plans allow for development of sufficient housing in sustainable locations and that new development is of good design.

It also sets out the planning approach that the Government wishes to see in relation to many aspects of the planning system, including housing delivery - with the golden thread running through the decision making process being the presumption in favour of sustainable development.


Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against policies in the NPPF taken as a whole; or


DEVELOPMENT PLAN


The adopted Core Strategy (February 2013) is now part of the Development Plan for the District of Blaby. It is an up-to-date plan that is consistent with National Policy and therefore, should be given full statutory weight. The following policies are the most relevant to the proposed development.

Policy CS1 – Strategy for Locating New Development

Policy CS1 seeks to focus new housing development in the most sustainable locations in the district, close to the principal urban area (PUA) of Leicester and more sustainable towns and villages. Glen Parva is part of the PUA and therefore is considered to be one of the most sustainable locations for new development within Blaby District.


Policy CS2 seeks to ensure that a high quality environment is achieved in all new development proposals, respecting distinctive local character and contributing towards creating places of high architectural and urban design quality. The design of new development should also be appropriate to its context. The submitted indicative layout demonstrates that a high quality development could be delivered on this site, however Members must note that this submitted layout is not binding at this stage, and if outline approval is granted the layout would be the subject of a Reserved Matters application and that layout may not ultimately reflect the currently submitted indicative proposal.

Policy CS5 – Housing Distribution

Policy CS5 aims to focus new development in the most appropriate locations and the District Council seeks to distribute housing by settlement in accordance with the figures contained within the Core Strategy. As of 1 April 2014, there was a minimum residual housing requirement of 146 dwellings in the PUA. Since April 2014, additional sites have come forward and been granted planning permission within the PUA with the result that the minimum housing requirement is met by existing commitments. Whereas this current proposal would provide a further 165 dwellings, your Officers do not consider that exceeding the minimum housing requirement of the PUA housing figure by this limited amount is excessive or will cause demonstrable harm to the spatial housing distribution strategy of the Core Strategy. Accordingly, the proposal accords with Policy CS5. Policy CS7 – Affordable Housing

Policy CS7 aims to optimise the provision of affordable housing within the District. The latest update of the SHMA indicates that the affordable housing requirement (ie the annual level of affordable housing required in order to eliminate affordable housing requirements over a 7.5 year period) in the District of Blaby is 344 dpa. Between 2006 and 2012, 254 affordable homes (an average of 42 dpa) have been provided. In light of the shortfall in delivery, the proposed provision of affordable housing is a material consideration in favour of the scheme, accordingly the proposal accords with Policy CS7.

Policy CS8 – Mix of Housing

Policy CS8 requires proposals for development of 10 or more dwellings to provide an appropriate mix of housing types. This is guided by the Housing Mix and Affordable Housing SPD. The applicants have confirmed that any subsequent Reserved Matters submission will ensure that the affordable and market housing mix meets the requirements of the Housing SPD. The proposals are therefore considered to be acceptable with regard to the requirements of Policy CS8.

Policy CS10 – Transport Infrastructure

Policy CS10 indicates that the District Council will seek to reduce the need to travel by private car by locating new development so that people can access services and facilities. The site is located within the PUA and is a sustainable location for new development. Future residents will be able to access local bus services and each household will be provided with a travel pack. The development is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy CS10.

Policy CS11 – Infrastructure, Services and Facilities to Support Growth and Policy CS12 – Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions Policy CS11 indicates that new developments should be supported by the required physical, social and environment infrastructure at the appropriate time. Policy CS12 seeks to ensure that the requirements for infrastructure, services and facilities arising

from any development will be sought in accordance with the Council’s latest Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions SPD.

This proposal will generate the need to provide financial contributions towards essential infrastructure, services and facilities and the requests for financial contributions from consultees are detailed above. Developer contributions are required where necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, where it is directly related to the development and is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Members should note that Leicestershire Constabulary has requested a developer contribution of £55,954. However, it is not considered that the request is fully compliant with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations. The recommendation on this application includes provision for a developer contribution towards all CIL compliant capital infrastructure for Policing necessitated by the Development.

Policy CS14 – Green Infrastructure and Policy CS15 – Open Space, Sport and Recreation

Policy CS14 aims to protect existing and provide new networks of multi-functional green spaces. Green infrastructure can include formal open spaces for sport and recreation, green areas that can be used for informal recreation and areas that are valuable for their bio-diversity. Policy CS15 indicates that Blaby District Council will seek to ensure that all residents have access to sufficient, high quality, accessible open space, sport and recreation facilities.

The development proposals include the provision of green infrastructure and open space as an integral part of the design. It is therefore considered that the proposals comply with Policy CS14 and CS15.

Policy CS21 – Climate Change

Policy CS21 states that development which mitigates and adapts to climate change will by supported. The application site is located within the PUA which is the most sustainable location for new development in Blaby District. A sustainable drainage system will be provided. It is therefore considered that the development will generally comply with the requirements of Policy CS21.

Policy CS22 – Flood Risk Management

Policy CS22 states that the Council will ensure all development minimises vulnerability and provides resilience to flooding taking into account climate change. The application site is not located in the flood plain. However, due to the size of the application site a flood risk assessment has been submitted. The Environment Agency has raised no objections to the development of this site provided conditions are imposed.

Policy CS23 – Waste

Policy CS23 refers to a hierarchy of dealing with waste. A condition is recommended to ensure that the applicant submits a waste management plan for the site to ensure that the development complies with the requirements of Policy CS23.




Although the Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013) has been adopted, a number of policies from the Blaby District Local Plan (1999) continue to be saved. The following policies are of relevance to this application.

Policy T3 – Highways Standards Parking and Service Provision

Policy T3 states that planning permission will only be granted for development involving a new access, road scheme or improvement if:

• Appropriate facilities for pedestrians and cyclists are provided; and • Safeguards for living and working conditions and the environment are

incorporated.

The Highway Authority has raised no concerns in relation to the proposed development and the criteria of Policy T3.

Policy T6 – Off Street Parking Provision Policy T6 states that new residential development should accord with the adopted car parking standards of the District Council. This aspect of the development will be addressed at the Reserved Matters stage in the event of outline planning permission being granted.

Policy L4 – Recreation, Sport, Leisure and Tourism

Policy L4 proposes that this site be used predominantly for open recreation uses. However, the explanatory text that accompanies Policy L4 does state that any constraints to built development on this site may be capable of satisfactory resolution within the Local Plan period (i.e. 1999 to 2006), and any material change in circumstances will be taken into consideration during the review of the Local Plan. The Core Strategy does not specifically propose this site for recreation uses, and the

fact that the land has never been brought forward for recreation uses since its designation in the 1999 Local Plan reduces the weight that can be given to Policy L4. It should also be noted that the scheme now proposed does provide for areas of open space and Green Infrastructure that will result in a proportion of the site being available for recreation use. On balance, therefore, the conflict with Policy L4 is not considered to be of such weight as to justify a reason for refusal on this matter alone.

Policy M2 – Unstable Land and Policy M3 – Contamination

Policy M2 and Policy M3 state that planning permission will only be granted on land known or suspected to be either unstable or at risk from contamination where the District Council is satisfied that the proposed development can be undertaken safely. The applicant has submitted detailed ground and contamination reports and remediation proposals. The Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that these details are satisfactory, and the site can be satisfactorily remediated and built upon. It is also important to note that the Environment Agency have raised no objections to the principle of development taking place on this site, subject to the imposition of rigorous conditions. Accordingly, Policies M2 and M3 are complied with.



In addition to the policy considerations set out above, there are substantive material considerations that relate to the development of this site, which are: • Ground contamination and remediation;• Highway Considerations; • Relationship with adjacent residential properties;• Noise;• Air Quality.

Ground Contamination and Remediation

A great deal of concern has been raised in relation to the former use of this land as a landfill site and its suitability to accept residential development. This matter has also been of critical concern to your Officers during the course of the determination of this application. The applicants have submitted a range of technical reports and assessments that have considered matters such as the presence of landfill gas, the presence of potentially harmful contaminants, impact on ground stability, the implications for construction, potential for harm to human health for residents post completion, the impact on water quality and the impact on existing adjacent residents. These reports and assessments demonstrate that this site can be adequately remediated and subsequently safely built upon. The findings of these reports have been independently reviewed by the Statutory Consultees (i.e. the Environment Agency and Severn Trent Water) and this Council’s Environmental Health Officer, who have concurred with those conclusions.

For the information of Members, the wording of the conditions suggested by the Environment Agency and the Environmental Health Officer to address the ground contamination issues are set out in full below:

“Condition – No development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority), shall take place until a scheme that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the District Planning Authority:

1) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:- all previous uses potential contaminants associated with those uses a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

2) A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

3) The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

4) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to

demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the District Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason – National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of water pollution. Government policy also states that planning policies and decisions should also ensure that adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented (NPPF, paragraph 121).

Condition – If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the District Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the District Planning Authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the District Planning Authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

Reason – National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of water pollution. Government policy also states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented (NPPF, paragraph 121). Condition – No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until such time as a scheme for surface water drainage has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the District Planning Authority.

1. Provision, implementation of a Sustainable Drainage (SuDs) system with storage provided up to the 100 year plus 30% climate change allowance.

2. A scheme should include one treatment train for roofs and two treatment trains for roads and hard-standing areas in line with CIRIA C697 recommendations.

3. Maintenance of sustainable drainage system.4. The surface water drainage arrangements should be such that the volumes

and peak flow rates of surface water leaving the site are no greater than the rates prior to development.

The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the District Planning Authority.

Reason – This condition is required for the following reasons:

1. To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site.2

2. To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future users.”

In the absence of any technical objections to the proposed remediation works, and subject to the imposition of rigorous pre-commencement planning conditions governing further detailed ground investigations and remediation timetables (as set out above), your Officers once again have had to conclude that there are no robust, defensible and justifiable reasons to refuse this planning application on the grounds of the sites former use and contamination.

Highway Considerations

Concern has been raised by both the Parish Council and residents in relation to highways matters, namely the capacity of the existing road network to accommodate the traffic generated by the development and the robustness of the submitted Transport Assessment. However, as stated earlier in this report, the Leicestershire County Council as Highway Authority has raised no objections to this proposal after consideration of all the facts and they are satisfied that the existing road network can accommodate the traffic that will be generated by this proposal. The scheme is

therefore considered to be acceptable in relation to highway matters and a robust reason for refusal on highway concerns could not be sustained.

The Highway Authority has provided the following information to explain why no objections are raised to the proposed development:

“1. Background

This is a re-submission of a previous application reference 2014/0216/01.

2. Site Access

The proposed access drawing numbered TA07 Rev C is acceptable.

3. Off-Site Implications

3.1 Glenville Avenue/Leicester Road

Drawing numbered TA06 in Appendix P of the Transport Assessment shows the available visibility splays at the above junction. Details have been provided of vehicle speeds on Leicester Road. The 85%ile vehicle speeds have been measured as 30.9mph northbound and 33.1mph southbound. The visibility splays of 2.4m x 66m achievable out of Glenville Avenue are more than adequate for the vehicle speeds measured.

3.2 Visibility Splays at other Junctions

Drawings numbered TA08 and TA09 show visibility splays at the West View Avenue/Leicester Road and West View Avenue/Cork Lane junctions respectively. These show that the junctions have adequate visibility.

3.3 Junction Capacity

3.3.1 Glenville Avenue/Leicester Road

The assessments show that this junction has sufficient capacity to cater for the traffic generated by the proposed development.

3.3.2 Leicester Road/Little Glen Road/Newbridge Road

The Highway Authority’s own assessments using the existing system logs, show that there is deterioration in capacity. It is recommended that a contribution of £2000 is sought for MOVA (Micro-processor Optimised Vehicle Actuation) validation post completion of development.

4. Transport Sustainability

4.1 Public Transport

The Highway Authority is concerned that the nearest bus stops are more than 400m from the farthest dwelling within the site. However there are high frequency services along Leicester Road effectively every 10 minutes to and from Leicester City centre. The existence of a high frequency service means that residents may wish to walk further than 400m to access the service. As the stops on Leicester Road are generally within 800m any objection therefore on transport sustainability would be difficult to sustain. However, contributions are sought for travel packs and passes (detailed below).”

The scheme is therefore considered to be acceptable in relation to highway matters and a robust reason for refusal on highway concerns could not be sustained.

Relationship with Adjacent Residential Properties

There are existing residential properties adjacent to the site. The indicative layout shows that any future development can be designed to ensure adequate distances between the new dwellings and the existing residential properties which adjoin the site boundaries. It is therefore considered that the proposed development will not have such an adverse impact on the residential amenities of adjoining residents as to merit refusal.

Noise

The application site is close to the existing industrial estate located off Wharf Way. To ensure that the future occupants of the development would not experience unacceptable noise from the established industrial activities, a number of measures are proposed to be incorporated into the construction of the proposed dwellings. A noise assessment has been submitted as part of the planning application and the Environmental Health Officer has no objections to the proposals provided the development is carried out in accordance with the mitigation strategy identified in the submitted noise assessment.

Air Quality

An air quality assessment has been submitted with the planning application. And the Environmental Health Officer has advised that the assessment is acceptable and shows that the predicated impact of the development on air quality would be negligible. However, the Environmental Health Officer has requested that a financial contribution be sought (via a S106 Agreement) towards the cost of monitoring air quality as a result of this development and measures for improvement.

Conclusion

The three dimensions of sustainable development have been considered (economic, social and environmental) as set out in the NPPF and the proposal would provide housing contributing to the quality and choice of housing in the Principal Urban Area.

The principle of the development is therefore acceptable and accords with adopted policies.

There are no objections from any of the statutory bodies, and there are no technical reasons for this application to be refused. Accordingly this application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the proposed conditions and signing of the legal agreement as detailed above.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

15/0246/FUL Registered Date Mrs Rose Askham13 February 2015 Leysland High School

Installation of modular building to serve as temporary classroom block

Leysland High School, Winchester Road, Countesthorpe

Report Author: Dan Ingram, Planning Technician


RECOMMENDATION:Approval subject to the imposition of the following conditions:

1. Statutory 3 Year condition2. Approved drawings3. Building to be removed no later than 3 years from the date of permission

NOTES TO COMMITTEE

Relevant Planning Policies

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) Planning Practice Guidance (2014)


Policy CS2 Design of New DevelopmentPolicy CS24 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development


Policy R2 Non Residential Development in Primarily Residential Areas

Consultation Summary

Countesthorpe Parish Council – No objections.

Leicestershire County Council, Historic Buildings – No comments received.


No third party representations have been received.

Recent Relevant Planning History

No relevant planning history.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Proposal

Leysland High School is located on Winchester Road in Countesthorpe and adjoins the Countesthorpe College complex to the south. The proposal consists of a single storey, modular classroom building which will be located on an area of land between the existing school building and the bike store. The proposed building will be approximately 10 metres wide and 16.8 metres long. The maximum height of the proposed building will be approximately 3.5 metres but will be no higher than 4.4 meters above ground level at its highest point due to the topography of the land.

The proposal seeks temporary planning permission and the applicant has stated that the building will be removed by August 2016.

Supporting Documents

The following documents have been submitted as part of the planning application:

Supporting Statement


Section 38(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless there are other material considerations which indicate otherwise. This section of the report will first consider the proposed development against the policy background and then consider any other material considerations.

There are a number of themes which run through national guidance as expressed in the National Planning Policy Framework and these are generally in line with local policies expressed through the Development Plan. Key themes in the case of this application are that new development should be sustainable and the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed is encouraged.

NATIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE


The National Planning Policy Framework establishes the key principles for proactively delivering sustainable development through the development plan system and the determination of planning applications. The emphasis is that development plans allow for development of sufficient housing in sustainable locations and that new development is of good design.

It also sets out the planning approach that the Government wishes to see in relation to many aspects of the planning system, including housing delivery - with the golden

thread running through the decision making process being the presumption in favour of sustainable development.


Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against policies in the NPPF taken as a whole; or


The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) (2014) provides supporting guidance to the interpretation of the NPPF.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN


The adopted Core Strategy (February 2013) is now part of the Development Plan for the District of Blaby. It is an up-to-date plan that is consistent with National Policy. Therefore, the policies of the Core Strategy should be given full statutory weight. The following policies are the most relevant to the proposed development.


Seeks to ensure that a high quality environment is achieved in all new development proposals, respecting distinctive local character and contributing towards creating places of high architectural and urban design quality. The design of the new development should also be appropriate to its context. It is considered that this scheme, by reason of size, scale and design, respects the context of the local area and accords with Policy CS2.


Indicates that when considering development proposals Blaby District Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development.


Although the Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013) has been adopted, a number of policies from the Blaby District Local Plan (1999) continue to be saved. The following policies are of relevance to this application:

Policy R2 – Non Residential Development in Primarily Residential Areas

Indicates that non-residential development will be allowed provided that it does not conflict with the aims of the specified criteria of Policy R1.



In addition to the policy considerations set out above, there are substantive material considerations that relate to the development of this site, which are:

Impact on Character and Appearance of the Area; Relationship with adjacent school buildings.


Leysland High School is located within a Primarily Residential Area as designated on the Proposals Map of the Blaby District Local Plan (1999). Policy R2 allows for non- residential development subject to the development not conflicting with the aims of the specified criteria of Policy R1. The proposal would be sited within the main school complex and would not unduly harm residents of the surrounding properties or the school itself.

Core Strategy Policy CS2 promotes high quality design and architecture in new development. The design of the proposed building is typical of a building of this nature and would not be out of keeping with the school itself. The building proposed is a temporary structure and as such any conflict with this Policy is not considered strong enough to warrant the refusal of the application.

Taking all of this into account the principle of the development is therefore considered acceptable.

Impact on Character and Appearance of the Area

The design of the building will not be out of keeping with the surrounding buildings, all of which form part of Leysland High School or the adjacent Countesthorpe College.

A number of the properties situated on “The Drive” are Grade II Listed. The closest of these are approximately 70 meters away from the application site. Considering the wider nature of the site it is considered that the temporary addition of this classroom building will not unduly impact upon the character or setting of any listed buildings.

The maximum height of the proposed building will be approximately 4.4 metres above ground level with a total floor space of 156 sq.m. Given that the building is to be sited within the main school complex and its low height, it is considered that the proposed development will have little impact on the character or appearance of the school or the wider area.

Residential Amenities

The proposed building is sited approximately 6 metres south of the main school building on an area of land between said school building and the bike store. At its closest point the building will be approximately 122 meters away from the nearest residential property on Winchester Road and approximately 70 meters away from the nearest properties on “The Drive”.

It is considered that these distances, and the low nature of the building mean that there will be little impact on the residential amenities of the surrounding properties.

Conclusion

Taking into account the wider nature of the site and adjoining college, it is considered that the temporary addition of this modular classroom building will not harm the character or appearance of the area whilst providing much needed classroom accommodation for the school. The building is to be sited at good distances away from residential properties and as such the amenities of local residents have been preserved.

It is considered that the building is compliant with the relevant policies and is acceptable in planning terms. It is therefore recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions as detailed previously.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________