C1

Item No. 3 Application Reference Number P/17/1898/2

Application Type: Reserved Matters Date Valid: 25/09/2017 Applicant: Bloor Homes Ltd, Cynthia Spence & Nicholas Wells Proposal: Reserved Matters application for layout for up to 160 dwellings

(outline planning permission P/14/0428/2 refers). Location: Land off Cropston Road,

Anstey Leicestershire LE7 7GG

Parish: Anstey, Newtown Linford, Thurcaston & Cropston

Ward: Anstey

Case Officer:

Andrew Thompson Tel No: 01509 634735

The application has been called to Plans Committee at the request of Cllr Taylor due to her concerns regarding the housing mix. She considers the mix is not in line with the adopted Core Strategy and does not take into account the needs of the village where there is an urgent need for smaller properties and bungalows. Furthermore, she considers the mix does not fit in with the HEDNA/Housing SPD with the loss of all the previously proposed one bedroomed properties and is exceeding the recommended amount for four bedroomed properties. Description of the site The application site lies within the open countryside on the northern edge of Anstey immediately bordering the current extent of built development off Fairhaven Road, which lies to the west side of Cropston Road. The total site area is approximately 15.04 ha. The land currently comprises of a series of open agricultural fields with intervening native hedgerows and trees. The site fronts Cropston Road. Within the site boundary is Fairhaven Farm which although excluded from the application site is retained within the overall development site. Fairhaven Farm is a large detached dwelling with a large outbuilding on its rear (western) boundary. The existing access drive to Fairhaven Farm runs on the entire northern boundary and services the house and the rear outbuilding. The southern boundary of the site borders Fairhaven Road, which comprises established single and two storey residential properties. Outline planning permission was conditionally granted on the site for residential development for up to 160 dwellings, public open space and various other associated works on 9th November 2014 (application P/14/0428/2 refers). Reserved Matters approval was granted on 8 May 2017 under reference P/17/0314/2 and

C2

remains extant. The application before members now is a revised scheme seeking reserved matters approval under the outline planning permission P/14/0428/2. Description of the Proposal The proposal seeks approval of reserved matters for 160 dwellings in line with the outline planning permission approved under P/14/0428/2. The application considers revised proposals for reserved matters from those approved under P/17/0314/2. The access off Cropston Road from a roundabout at the junction of Cropston Road and Anstey Lane has been previously approved as part of the outline permission. The scheme includes a play area and open space to the north and west of the site. The mix of house types is 112 open market dwellings and 48 affordable dwellings comprising a mix of one, two, three and four bedrooms. Table 1 – Proposed Housing Mix

Mix of house types

House Type Market Affordable (rent/shared)

Total

1 bed flat - 6 (all rent)

6

1 bedroom bungalow

- 3 (all rent)

3

2 bed bungalow - 2 (all rent)

2

2 bed bungalow (1.5storey)

6 - 6

2 bedroom house 25 22 (16/6)

49

3 bedroom bungalow (1.5 storey)

7 6

3bedroom house 41 13 (7/6)

57

4 bedroom house 33 2 (all rent)

25

Total 112 48 (36/12)

160

The proposals alter the following house types and plot numbers from the approved scheme: Table 2 – Plots and house types proposed to be changed from P/17/0314/2

Plot numbers Approved house type

(P/17/0314/2) Proposed house type

(P/17/1898/2)

39-41 3, 3bed detached 3, 4 bed detached

C3

Plot numbers Approved house type

(P/17/0314/2) Proposed house type

(P/17/1898/2)

77-78 2-1bed bungalows 1, 3-bed 1.5storey 1, 2-bed bungalow

78-80 4, 1bed flats; 2, 2bed and 1, 3 bed

Terrace of 2, 2bed and 1, 3bed house

83-84 3 bed detached

2, 3bed semis

130-134 3, 3beds 2, 2beds – semi

3, 4beds detached 2, 3beds detached

137-139 3, 3beds

3, 4beds detached

140-141* 1, 3bed 2, 4bed

2, 3 bed detached

144-146* 2, 2bed 1, 3bed

3, 3bed detached 2, 4bed detached

* In order to achieve this plots 142 and 143 have been moved sideways slightly.

The proposals continue to maintain the approved layout and mix in relation to those areas which border Fairhaven Farm and to Fairhaven Road to the south. This includes the continued provision of bungalows. The only change at the southern boundary is the changes to plots 77-78 which have been turned through 90 degrees and as a result have been increased in size. The principle changes are to the northern section of the site which fronts the open countryside. This would principally alter the house types from two/three bedroom detached or semi-detached properties to three and four bedroom semi-detached and detached properties as set out in the table above. Development Plan Policies Charnwood Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-2028 (Adopted 9th November 2015) Policy CS1 - Development Strategy - sets out the development strategy for the Borough. This includes a direction of growth which focuses housing development in locations around Loughborough and Shepshed with three Sustainable Urban Extensions. The 7 Service Centres, including Anstey, are identified to deliver 3,000 houses with commitments for around 3,600 houses (including this site). Policy CS2 – High Quality Design requires developments to make a positive contribution to Charnwood, reinforcing a sense of place. Development should respect and enhance the character of the area, having regard to scale, massing, height, landscape, layout, materials and access; protect the amenity of people who live or work nearby, provide attractive well managed public and private spaces; well defined and legible streets and spaces and reduce their impact on climate change.

C4

Policy CS3 – Strategic Housing Needs supports an appropriate housing mix for the Borough and sets targets for affordable homes provision. In Anstey 30% affordable homes are sought on sites of 10 dwellings or more. Policy CS11 – Landscape and Countryside seeks to protect the character of the landscape and countryside. It requires new development to protect landscape character, reinforce sense of place and local distinctiveness, tranquillity and to maintain separate identities of settlements. Policy CS13 – Biodiversity and Geodiversity seeks to conserve and enhance the natural environment and to ensure development takes into account impact on recognised features. Policy CS15 – Open Space, Sports and Recreation deals with open space and requires all new development to meet the standards in the open space Strategy. Policy CS16 – Sustainable Construction and Energy supports sustainable design and construction techniques. It also encourages the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed. Policy CS17 – Sustainable Transport seeks a 6% shift from travel by private car to sustainable modes by requiring major developments to provide access to key facilities by safe and well-lit routes for walking and cycling that are integrated with the wider green infrastructure network and by securing new and enhanced bus services where new development is more than 400m walk from an existing bus stop. Policy CS18 – The Local and Strategic Highway Network – seeks to ensure that appropriate highway improvements are delivered and applications are supported by appropriate Transport Assessments. Policy CS24 - Delivering Infrastructure - seeks to ensure that development contributes to the reasonable costs of on site, and where appropriate off site, infrastructure, arising from the proposal through the use of Section 106 Agreements. This is so the local impacts of developments will have been reasonably managed and mitigated. Policy CS 25 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development – sets out a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the NPPF.

Borough of Charnwood Local Plan 1991-2006 (adopted 12th January 2004) (saved policies) Where they have not been superseded by Core Strategy policies, previous Local Plan policies remain part of the development plan. In relation to this proposal the relevant policies are: Policy ST/2 – Limits to Development – This policy seeks to restrict development to within the existing settlement limits to ensure that development needs can be met

C5

without harm to the countryside or other rural interests. The Limits to development distinguish between areas of development and development potential, and areas of restraint. Policy EV/1 – Design - This seeks to ensure a high standard of design and developments which respect the character of the area, nearby occupiers, and which are compatible in mass, scale, layout, whilst using landforms and other natural features. Developments should meet the needs of all groups and create safe places for people. Policy CT/1 General Principles for areas of the countryside, green wedge and local separation. The policy restricts new development to that which is small-scale and where it meets certain criteria. Policy CT/2 Developments in the Countryside – indicates in areas defined as countryside, development acceptable in principle will be permitted where it would not harm the character and appearance of the countryside and safeguards its historic, nature conservation, amenity and other local interest. Policy TR/18 – Parking in New Development - This seeks to set the maximum standards by which development should provide for off street car parking. Other material considerations The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) The NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions. The NPPF contains a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Framework states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and that there are 3 dimensions to this;

An economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places to support growth and innovation

A social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations, and by creating a high quality built development with accessible local services;

An environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment.

Para 17 sets out the core principles of sustainable development In terms of the remainder of the NPPF, relevant sections are as follows:

C6

Section 4: Promoting Sustainable Transport Paras. 29-32 Promotes sustainable modes of transport and consideration of highway implications in that only where a development results in a severe impact should it be refused. Section 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Paras. 47 & 49 – requires Local Planning Authorities to significantly boost the supply of land and need for a 5 year housing land supply. Para 50 advises local planning authorities to plan for a mix of housing. Section 7: Requiring good design Paras. 56, 58, 63 &64 – Development is required to achieve high quality design that respects local distinctiveness and poor design should be refused. Section 8. Promoting healthy communities Paras 69 and 70: Facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities. Section 10: Climate change and flooding Para 96 - Direct development away from areas at high risk of flooding, and it should take account of layout, landform, building orientation, massing and landscaping to minimise energy consumption. Para 103 – seeks to ensure that development is flood resilient and designs in sustainable drainage. Section 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Para 109 - Developments should promote the natural environment and safeguard protected species Section 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Para 128 - Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. Paras 133 and 134 - Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. On decision taking the NPPF advises:

C7

Paras 186 and 187: Local Planning Authorities should act in a positive and proactive manner in decision making. Para 196: Re-emphasises the primacy of the Development Plan in decision making. Paras 203-206: Sets out the tests for the use of planning conditions and obligations. Planning Practice Guidance This was launched as a web based resource, and replaces a list of previous practice guidance documents and notes, as planning guidance for England and consolidates this guidance on various topics into one location and condenses previous guidance on various planning related issues. The guidance also sets out relevant guidance on aspects of flooding, air quality, noise, design, the setting and significance of heritage assets, landscape, contaminated land, Community Infrastructure Levy, transport assessments and travels plans, supporting the policy framework as set out in the NPPF Leading in Design Supplementary Planning Document (February 2006) This document encourages and provides guidance on achieving high quality design in new development. Appendix 4 sets out spacing standards for new housing developments to ensure that overlooking and over dominance do not occur and that a good quality design is achieved. Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2017) Adopted May 2017, the SPD provides guidance to support the Local Plan Core Strategy and the saved policies of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan in respect of Policy CS3: Strategic Housing Needs - for affordable housing and housing mix. It should be noted that guidance note HSPD 9, which deals with housing mix, has been quashed by the High Court and is no longer a material consideration in the consideration of planning applications. Leicestershire Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) – 2017 HEDNA provides an up to date evidence base of local housing needs including an objectively assessed housing need figure to 2036 based on forecasts and an assessment of the recommended housing mix based on the expected demographic changes over the same period. Whilst the objectively assessed need figure remains untested in a plan making environment and is therefore not to be relied upon at the current time, the housing mix evidence can be accorded significant weight as it reflects known demographic changes. Further, HEDNA states that the figures on mix should not be applied “prescriptively to individual development sites, where consideration should be given to the mix of housing locally, the setting of the site and character of the area, and local demand evidence. This recognises that logically there will be sites more suitable for development of different densities. Larger housing sites should be expected to provide market housing of a range of sizes”.

C8

Relevant Planning History P/87/2906/2 – Outline planning application for residential development and open space was refused and the appeal dismissed. P/14/0428/2 - Outline planning permission was conditionally granted on the site for residential development of up to 160 dwellings, public open space and various other associated works on 9th November 2015. P/16/0302/2 - Reserved Matters approval was refused planning permission by Plans Committee on 22nd September 2016 for 2 reasons related to the housing mix and the design of the development and how the scheme was integrated with the affordable housing and market housing. An appeal was subsequently dismissed. P/16/2205/2 - Variation of conditions 4 and 25 to planning application P/14/0428/2 to carry out highway works to the Nook and A46/Anstey Lane junction prior to occupation of up to 30 dwellings. The application was refused by Plans Committee on 8 December 2016 as it was considered that the alterations to the condition would result in a severe and unacceptable impact on the highway network contrary to the intentions of paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework. An appeal was withdrawn. P/17/0314/2 - Erection of 160 dwellings (Reserved matters - Outline application P/14/0428/2 refers) – Granted 8th May 2017. P/17/0893/2 - Discharge of Condition 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 21, 22 and 23 of P/14/0428/2. Traffic/Construction Management Plan. Construction Traffic Routing. Residential Travel Plan. SUDs Drainage Scheme. Management of Buffer Zone. Landscaping Scheme. Hedgerow and Tree Protection. Foul and Surface Water disposal details. Discharged 3rd November 2017. Response of Statutory Consultees Leicestershire County Council Highway Authority No comments to make on the revised plans but would remind the Local Planning Authority that drawings ref: MI103-EN-117B, MI103-EN-118C & MI103-EN-119E have already got approval under Section 38 of the Highway Act. Anstey Parish Council The Parish Council objects to this reserved matters application. This proposal suggests an increase in 4 bedroomed properties and a decreased in 2 and 3 bedroomed properties and no 1 bedroomed properties. The Parish Council conclude that these changes do not meet the needs of Anstey and are not in keeping with Charnwood Borough Council’s Plan.

C9

Charnwood Housing Strategy Manager No comment to make in relation to the above planning application on the basis that this does not impact on the affordable housing previously secured Third Party Representations Councillor Deborah Taylor Objects to the housing mix within this application including the loss all of the one bedroomed properties, including two bungalows. There has also been a decrease in two bedroomed properties. The amount of three bedroomed properties has increased slightly and the amount of four bedroomed properties has increased even more. Public comment Five letters of objection have been received, all from the same address raising the following comments:

- This plan has 10 more 4 bedroomed houses that the previous plan but 2 less 3 bedroomed houses, 2 less 2 bedroomed houses and no 1 bedroomed flats or bungalows all for sale.

- Plan should be for smaller houses and less 4 bedroomed houses and the new plan goes against all Council and Anstey residents’ requests.

- Why are further applications to change housing mix allowed to be submitted when the developer has already lost an appeal.

Consideration of the Planning Issues The principle of development was established following the granting of outline planning permission P/14/0428/2. Through the granting of the outline application, the impact on flooding, road congestion and local wildlife were considered and addressed. The previous refusal of the reserved matters (under reference P/16/0302/2) should also be noted and consideration given as to whether or not the current application overcomes the previous concerns raised. However the proposals are substantively different from the appeal scheme that was dismissed. The application under consideration relates to matters listed in the tables 1 and 2 at the beginning of this report. The key considerations in relation to this application are therefore:

Updates since the previous Reserved Matters Approval under P/17/0314/2

Housing mix

Integration with housing locally and the setting of the site and character

Relationship to neighbouring properties

Conditions of the outline planning permission

C10

Updates since the Reserved Matters Approval There are three updates in position to consider since the previous Reserved Matters Approval. Firstly, the Council’s Five Year Housing Land Supply update published on 25 September 2017 indicates that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land. However, notwithstanding this, the principle of the development on the application site has already been established, and the housing supply policies and the impact of the development has already been considered acceptable and has started on site. Guidance note HSPD 9 of the Housing Supplementary Planning Document 2017 has been successfully challenged. Irrespective of this outcome the evidence relating to housing mix (i.e. HEDNA) still exists and is a material planning consideration in terms of evidence. The third issue to consider is the appeal decision to P/16/0302/2. The Inspector concluded a number of important points but the principle conclusion is:

“the conditions on outline planning permission P/14/0428/2 do not provide a means to enable the Council to control the mix of market housing at reserved matters stage. However, I have found that there would be material harm in terms of the distribution of the affordable housing within the site, and lack of integration with the market housing. Although I have found no harm, subject to conditions, to the character and appearance of the area and residents’ living conditions, that does not weigh in favour of the proposal. On balance therefore, having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.” [emphasis added]

It is noted that a costs submission was made by the appellant in the consideration of mix. The Inspector refused this submission on the following basis:

“…In my decision I have found that the conditions attached to outline planning permission P/14/0428/2 do not require the agreement of an appropriate mix of housing at the reserved matters stage. However, the Council have in this instance put forward case law which it considered would justify the inclusion of the consideration of housing mix within the reserved matters of scale and appearance. This is case law that was not in front of other Inspectors when they reached the decisions which were referred to me by the applicants. I am satisfied therefore that although I have reached a different conclusion to the Council, it advanced a case, with evidence, that in its opinion, indicated that housing mix could reasonably be considered within the submitted reserved matters.”

The conclusions of the Inspector should be given weight in the consideration of this application. Having tested the relevant case law robustly it is considered it would be illogical and unreasonable to seek to re-argue the issue of mix as a consideration in its own right.

C11

Housing mix Notwithstanding the above, the issue of housing mix is outlined below as a context to Policy CS3, which seeks an appropriate mix of types, tenure and sizes of homes, having regard to identified housing needs and the character of the Borough and the tests outlined at paragraph 5.36 of HEDNA. The housing mix identified in HEDNA 2017 is set out below:

Bedrooms Affordable Market

1 40-45% 0-10%

2 20-25% 25-35%

3 25-30% 45-55%

4+ 5-10% 10-20%

However it is noted that the Inspector, in dismissing the Council’s case that mix was a Reserved Matter in its own right also followed the advice of HEDNA guidance and considered the mix of housing locally, the setting of the site and character of the area, and local demand evidence. The Inspector concluded that the relationship between market and affordable housing was contrary to Development Plan Policy and the framework in providing 60% of four-bed housing in comparison to the general smaller size and scale of the affordable housing. Accordingly the proposal failed in terms of the design and integration of affordable housing. The table below sets out the Housing Mix and the evolution through the refused scheme (dismissed on appeal), the approved Reserved Matters and the current changes in percentage of mix:

Beds Market

Housing

HEDNA/SPD

P/16/0302/2

(dismissed

on appeal)

P/17/0314/2

(approved)

P/17/1898/2

(current)

Affordable

(no

change)

1 0-10 0 5.35 0 18.75

2 25-35 4.46 29.5 27.6 20

3 45-55 34.8 44.6 42.8 27

4 10-20 60.7 20.5 29.4 4.1

The above table shows that the affordable housing mix has been unaltered but that there has been alteration in the market housing proposals. The current proposal maintains the significantly reduced number of 4-bedroom market properties compared to the appeal scheme; however, it still seeks to increase the number of 4 bed dwellings above the previously approved scheme under P17/0314/2.

C12

Although HEDNA states that the figures should not be applied prescriptively it is noted that the provision of two bedroom properties is within the range outline by HEDNA, and the three bedroom units are only slightly below its findings. There has been an increase of 10 four bedroom units over the approved scheme and a reduction of 2 three bedroom units and the removal of the 4 one-bed flats from the market housing. Through the re-orientation of plots 77-78 there is the loss of one bungalow. The local housing need is unaffected by the current proposals as there is no proposed change in the affordable housing provision which has previously been agreed. The provision of 6 flats and 18 bungalows (21.5% of the total development) also provide a significant proportion of single storey/single level accommodation. The provision of 1.5 storey bungalows allows flexible floorspace and accommodation type which could for example allow for downsizing and the provision of accommodation for carers. In relation to housing mix, therefore, having taken into consideration the conclusions of the Inspector in respect of the dismissed appeal and given that the proposals currently under consideration remain broadly compliant with the guidance as outlined within HEDNA, it is considered there is no basis on which to raise a concern with regards to the proposed mix. However it remains necessary to also consider the design and site characteristics of the proposals as set out below. Integration with housing locally and the setting of the site and character Policies CS2 and CS3 of the Core Strategy and saved Policy EV/1 require developments to be in keeping with the character of the area and to take account of the local surroundings. This is supported by the aims and objectives of HEDNA which seeks, at paragraph 5.36, to ensure that the development is in keeping with the characteristics of the site and the area. The NPPF also seeks to ensure that there is no clear distinction between affordable and market housing. This was a specific failing in the scheme dismissed on appeal. It should be noted that no new house types are being introduced and therefore in terms of the house types previously approved the external appearance is considered acceptable. The alterations are substitutions in the plots and the number and type of houses. The main differences between the current proposal, and that previously approved, relate to the north of the site boundary which forms a transition to the open countryside and recreational areas. The proposals are to have larger housing on this part of the site. This is considered to be acceptable due to its edge of site context and in the design of the overall development as it creates an appropriate transition from edge for the settlement into the open countryside. The changes in scale and mass between the approved 3 bedroom detached properties and the 4 bedroom detached properties now proposed have also been considered. The changes are not

C13

considered to be significantly different (as described in table 1) in the context of the height, width and length of the proposed house types. The current proposals would continue to enable a good level of integration with the affordable housing and still provides for a significant level of 2 bedroom properties within the market housing mix. This differentiates the approved development that is now submitted from the appeal scheme. and the proposals through the provision of bungalows and smaller properties on the southern boundary would therefore be an appropriate relationship to Fairhaven Road. The loss of the 1bedroom flats are noted, however the loss of these properties are considered to result in a better form of development and relationship to the street scene and open space, with more space for landscaping and parking. The re-orientation of the bungalows also provides a more active and positive relationship to the open space. The loss of the bungalow provides larger back gardens. Overall, the proposals are in accordance with the aims and objectives of HEDNA and are a coherent design for the site, taking into consideration the surrounding area. The affordable and market housing are also integrated. The proposals are therefore considered acceptable and in accordance with Policies CS2 and CS3 of the Core Strategy and saved Policy EV/1 require developments to be in keeping with the character of the area and take account of the local surroundings Relationship to neighbouring properties As outlined in the report relating to the previous Reserved Matters (reference P/17/0314/2) there are two areas of particular attention where existing properties need to be carefully considered in terms of the impact from the proposed development. Particular regard is had to Fairhaven Road, notably the two storey property of 31 Fairhaven Road which is side on to the proposals and the bungalows at 33-39 Fairhaven Road. The other property affected is Fairhaven Farm. There are no changes in the current proposals to the relationship to the closest properties of Fairhaven Road and Fairhaven Farm. As set out previously in the report to P/17/0314/2: Fairhaven Road At the closest point the following relationships are formed:

39 Fairhaven Road to Plot 68 (1.5storey) – 16.3m to the side elevation of plot 68

37 Fairhaven Road to Plot 67 (1.5storey) – 22.8m (rear to rear elevation)

35 Fairhaven Road to Plot 66 (1.5storey) – 24.1m (rear to rear elevation)

33 Fairhaven Road to Plots 64 and 65 (both single storey) – 21.5m (rear to rear elevation)

It is considered that the proposals will continue to deliver an appropriate and satisfactory relationship between the proposed plots and existing properties.

C14

Fairhaven Farm It should be noted that the western boundary of the site is dominated by the former barn building which is a large and substantive structure which will shield a substantive amount of development from the private garden connected to the farm. Further, the access drive for the property runs along the northern boundary. Whilst the area is relatively open at this moment in time, planting is proposed to lessen the impact of the proposals. Notwithstanding the existing outbuilding, the amendments to the layout, secured through the reserved matters under P/17/0314/2 moved the houses to the western side of Fairhaven Farm further away from the house, such that there would be a reduced impact on the existing property. This relationship is unchanged from the approved scheme. Fairhaven Farm would continue to be further protected from over dominance and overlooking by the access drive to the farm’s outbuilding to the north of the property and the access road to the south of the property as agreed previously under the approved scheme. The scheme continues to deliver a scheme where the affordable housing is better distributed across the site and this is unchanged from the approved scheme. This improved the integration of the development and also lessened the impact on Fairhaven Farm. The Inspector’s conclusions about residential impact in his report following the appeal for P/16/0302/2 have been considered. The Inspector assessed a scheme which included two and a half storey properties and a higher number of properties around the boundary to Fairhaven Farm than the approved scheme (P/17/0314/2) and that now submitted. The Inspector also had regard to finished floor levels as identified on a ‘planning sections’ plan, which showed finished floor levels for the new properties. It is noted that the Inspector paid particular regard to Fairhaven Farm in her assessment and concluded that the proposed scheme would result in a considerable difference to the outlook and living conditions currently experienced by the occupiers of Fairhaven Farm. However, as stated by the Planning Inspector, change does not equate necessarily to harm. As a result, levels of privacy would be acceptable and the proposed houses would not be unacceptably overbearing or be inappropriately enclosing such that there would be any material harm in this regard. Overall, given that there has been considerable improvement in the relationship between the proposed development and Fairhaven Farm from the appeal scheme, the proposals are considered to be an acceptable relationship in terms of policy EV/1 of the Local Plan and policy CS2 of the Core Strategy. Conditions of the outline planning permission As confirmed in the consideration to the Reserved Matters P/17/0314/2, the submission satisfied a number of planning conditions. A further discharge of

C15

condition submission (reference P/17/0893/2) was received following this approval and following discussions with consultees, many planning conditions were discharged. Conditions 6, 7 and 16 of P/14/0428/2 require submission of details at the appropriate time set out within the outline planning permission. Condition 14 of P/14/0428/2 cannot be discharged at this stage as it relates to noise from the construction process. The proposed scheme does not alter the details of the discharged scheme which relate to technical matters. Conclusion In considering the overall planning balance, the proposals under consideration do not significantly alter the conclusions to the Reserved Matters scheme approved under P/17/0314/2. The proposals would be in accordance with the aims of HEDNA and provide an appropriate mix based on the site characteristics, the locality and integration of market and affordable housing. As noted above, the issue of mix cannot be continued as an argument in its own right to this Reserved Matters submission due to the conditions added to the associated outline planning permission (reference P/14/0428/2) and in any event HEDNA states that prescriptive application of figures in terms of the mix should be avoided. The proposals would be in accordance with policies EV/1 and TR18 of the Local Plan and policies CS1, CS2, CS3, CS11, CS12, CS12, CS17, CS18 and CS25 of the Core Strategy which is supported by adopted Supplementary Planning Documents and meets the aims and objectives of the NPPF, as a material planning consideration. RECOMMENDATION Grant Conditionally 1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: MI103-LOC-001 Rev B (Site Location Plan); MI103-SL-301 (Site Layout) Rev A, MI103-SL-H301 (Site Layout indicating which plots have changed) Rev A; MI103-PD-300 (Boundary Details), Materials and Means of Enclosure MI103-MAT-MOE-306 (Rev A) Landscape Proposals: 6632 Landscape Management Plan rev A (for L-400 series) (Rev E), 6632-L-401 to 408 and 411; 409 and 410 Rev A, 6632-L-4012 PLAY AREAS 1 of 2, 6632-L-4013 PLAY AREAS 2 of 2; 6632-L-4014A Landscaping Site Plan (Rev A) House Type Drawings (Market Houses): 290-PD-01; C210.SV_305-PD-01; C210.SV_305-PD-02; C210.SV-PD-01; C210.SV-PD-02; C210.SV-PD-03; C210.SV-PD-04; C210.SV-PD-05; C210.SV-PD-06; C290-PD-01; C303-305-PD-01; C303-305-PD-02; C303-PD-01; C305-PD-01; C305-PD-

C16

02; C309-PD-01; C309-PD-02; C341.SV-PD-01; C341-PD-01; C341-PD-02; C341-PD-03; C341-PD-04; C342-PD-01; C342-PD-02; C390-PD-01; C390-PD-02; C405-PD-01; C412-PD-01; C412-PD-02; C412-PD-03; C419-PD-01; C419-PD-02; C419-PD-03; C419-PD-04; C421.SV-PD-01(Floor Plans); C421.SV-PD-01(Elevations); C421-PD-01; C421-PD-02; C421-PD-03; C421-PD-04; C421-PD-05; C421-PD-06; C421-PD-07; C421-PD-08; C437-PD-01; and C438-PD-01 Affordable Housing House Type Drawings: 1BF01-PD-01; 1BF01-PD-02; 1BF01-PD-03; 1BP-PD-01; 2B3P-3B4P-PD-01; 2B3P-3B4P-PD-02; 2B3P-PD-01; 2B4P-PD-01; 2B4P-PD-02; 2B4P-PD-03; 2B4P-PD-04; 2B4P-PD-05; 2B4P-PD-06; 2BB-PD-01; 3B4P-PD-01; 3B4P-PD-02; 3B4P-PD-03; 3B5P-PD-01; 3B5P-PD-02; 3B5P-PD-03; 4B6P-PD-01; and 4B6P-PD-02 Garage Planning Drawings: GL01-PD-01; GL02-PD-01; HOG-PD-01 REASON: To define the permission and to ensure that the development is delivered in a satisfactory manner.

The following advice notes will be added to the permission: 1. The decision has been reached taking into account paragraphs 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework and in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. 2. Your attention is drawn to the Committee Report in the application and the position in relation to planning conditions related to P/14/0428/2. Remaining planning conditions will need to be formally discharged in accordance with the requirements of the condition.

C17