Item 1 Application Reference Number P/13/2128/2 Application Type: Full Date Valid: 24/10/2013 Applicant: Jelson Ltd Proposal: Erection of 60 dwellings and associated works. Location: Land off Loughborough Road Burton on the Wolds Parish: Burton on the Wolds,

Prestwold Ward: The Wolds

Case Officer:

Mick Morley Tel No: 01509 634740

Background An appeal has been lodged with the Secretary of State against the non-determination of this planning application. The format for the appeal is a Public Inquiry. Once an appeal has been lodged against non-determination a formal decision cannot be taken by the Local Planning Authority. The proposal is therefore being reported to Plans Committee seeking a resolution as to what view, if the Local Planning Authority had been in a position to determine the application, it would have taken on the proposals. The resolution of the Plans Committee will inform the Council’s case for the appeal. If the resolution is that planning permission would have been granted, appropriate conditions and S106 requirements need to be identified. The application was not determined within the 13 week time period. This was mainly due to on-going negotiations with the applicant and consideration of the application being deferred at the Plans Committee held on 8th January 2015 to allow additional information related to further highway improvements to be submitted. Description of the Site The application site is located in open countryside immediately outside and adjacent to the current Limits to Development for Burton on the Wolds. The site is on the western edge of the village, to the north of Loughborough Road. The total site area is approximately 3.85 hectares. The land currently comprises part of an agricultural field with hedgerows and trees on three boundaries. This includes the road frontage to Loughborough Road. To the west is the remaining part of the field, with woodland beyond. The woodland forms part of Prestwold Park. To the north are further agricultural fields beyond Burton Brook. To the south and east of the site are the current limits of the developed area of housing in Burton on the Wolds. The neighbouring properties comprise mainly two storey dwellings but with some single storey bungalows, although within the wider area there is a mix of property types and sizes. Prestwold Hall, a Grade I Listed Building, is located approximately 1km to the north west of the site. The Hall, together with St Andrew’s Church, Grade II* Listed, stand

1

within Prestwold Park (a Historic Park). Grade II Listed Field House is situated immediately adjacent to the north eastern corner of the site, at the end of Seymour Road. A permissive bridleway follows the southern and eastern boundaries, linking Loughborough Road with the public footpath/bridleway which follows Burton Brook and the northern boundary of the site. Description of the Proposal The application has been revised a number of times since it was submitted and is now for full planning permission for 60 dwellings. The proposed scheme contains a mix of housing including the provision of 30% (18 two and three bedroom) affordable properties. The site is to be accessed from a single point from Loughborough Road which will lead to a central estate road, serving several cul-de-sacs and private driveways. In addition to housing, the layout plan includes proposals for the provision of:

a Local Equipped Play Area;

proposed public open space including habitat creation;

a sustainable drainage attenuation pond, swales and associated wetland habitat;

public access to the land within the wider land ownership, with way-marked trails and biodiversity enhancements;

highway traffic calming measures on Loughborough Road, including street lighting and relocating 30 mph signs and crocodile teeth road markings to the west of the site and a pedestrian crossing scheme to the east.

The application is accompanied by the following documents:

Planning statement by GVA

Design and access statement prepared by Archial

An addendum to the design and access statement dated 25 February 2015

Transport Statement prepared by Savoy Consulting;

Traffic Calming Scheme for Loughborough Road, prepared by Savoy Consulting amended 25 February 2015;

Flood Risk Assessment and Hydraulic Modelling Report prepared by Royal HaskoningDHV;

Ecology Assessment and Protected Species Surveys undertaken by FPCR;

Arboricultural Assessment undertaken by FPCR;

Archaeological Desk Based Assessment (September 2013) prepared by University of Leicester Archaeological Services.

2

Development Plan Policies Borough of Charnwood Local Plan (adopted 12 January 2004) Policy ST/1 - Overall Strategy for Charnwood - Seeks to set the overall framework for development in the Borough, ensuring that sustainable patterns of development are pursued, that development is compatible in scale and character with its location, the needs of the community are met, and that features of the natural and built environment are protected and safeguarded where necessary. The policy aims to improve the quality of development through the layout of sites and to achieve sustainable development in a co-coordinated, comprehensive and consistent basis. Policy ST/2 - Limits to Development – This policy seeks to restrict development to within the existing Limits to Development boundaries of existing settlements to ensure that development needs can be met without harm to the countryside or other rural interests. Policy ST/3 - Infrastructure - Seeks to ensure that developers provide financial contributions for things which have an impact on related infrastructure or community facilities. These are to be negotiated through legal agreements. Policy EV/1 - Design - 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 EV/17 - Safety in New Development - Seeks to secure improvements to ensure public safety in the design and layout of new development. Policy EV/20 - Landscaping in New Development - Seeks to ensure that a high standard of landscaping is provided on all new development sites, particularly where these are in areas adjacent to countryside, or principle transport corridors. Locally native species will be sought. Policy EV/43 - Percent for Art - Seeks to ensure that there is either a contribution in lieu, or art is incorporated into the design of the development. Policy H/5 - Affordable Housing on Unallocated Sites - Seeks to secure the provision of the appropriate amount of affordable housing with a range of house types on windfall sites. Policy H/16 - Design and Layout of New Housing Developments - Seeks to ensure that proposed housing developments are planned to ensure that high standards of design are achieved in terms of scale, character of the area, privacy, landscaping and creating a safe and secure environment. Policy CT/1 - General Principles for Areas of Countryside, Green Wedge and Local Separation - Sets out the criteria against which to assess proposals for development within a Countryside location. This is limited to small scale developments and re-use

3

and adaptation of rural buildings for uses suitable in scale and nature. The exceptions are agricultural or forestry proposals, facilitation of the rural economy, improving recreational facilities, and implementing strategically important schemes. Policy CT/2 - Development in the Countryside - Seeks to ensure development acceptable in principle should not harm the character and appearance of the countryside and safeguard its amenity interests. Policy TR/1 - Specified Road Network - Seeks to ensure that development is not granted which results in serious congestion on the main traffic routes through the Borough, or otherwise prejudice the ability to provide for safe and efficient movement of traffic. Policy TR/5 - Transport Standards for New Development. This indicates that major proposals for housing employment or other uses would be appropriate within an urban location which is well served by public transport and within 400m of a potential bus route. Opportunity should be sought to improve cycling facilities where possible. Policy TR/6 - Traffic Generation from New Development - Seeks to restrict development which, through its impact, results in an unsatisfactory operation of the highway system, or has a significant impact on the environment, unless measures are proposed to overcome any harmful effects. In all cases measures should help to reduce car dependence and usage. Policy TR/16 – Traffic Calming – Seeks to include measure to reduce traffic speeds within and in the vicinity of the site to improve the safety, living and working conditions. Policy TR/17 – Impact of traffic on Minor Rural Roads – Seeks to resist development that results in a significant change in traffic and where road users would be endangered, the roads are unsuitable because of width, alignment or structural conditions or the improvements necessary would harm the rural character of the roads. Policy TR/18 - Parking in New Development - Seeks to set the maximum standards by which development should provide for off street car parking dependent on floor space or dwelling numbers. Policy RT/3 - Play Spaces in New Development - Seeks to ensure the provision of play space in development primarily for family occupation and sets out standards required to achieve this. It also allows for seeking commuted sum payments of developments less than 10 dwellings in areas where there would be, or is, a deficiency in play space in an area. Policy RT/4 - Youth/Adult Play in New Development - Seeks to ensure the provision of youth/adult play provision on developments of more than 10 units. Where this is not feasible on the site, then a commuted sum can be negotiated.

4

Policy RT/5 – Amenity Open Space in New Development - Requires the provision of 38 square metres per 10 dwellings for additional amenity open space on all developments over 10 dwellings. Policy RT/12 - Structural Open Space Provision in New Development - Sets out a requirement for the provision of the above to ensure that development is compatible in the wider landscape. National Planning Policy Framework Applications for planning permission should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. There should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development which is a key thread throughout the document. Local authorities should approve applications that accord with development plans or where the plan is absent, outdated, silent or indeterminate, unless adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or specific policies indicate development should be restricted. Planning should be plan led, proactively drive development, assume the default answer to development is yes, unless it compromises key sustainability principles. It should identify and then meet housing, business and other development needs, and respond to growth. A high standard of design and good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and building should be sought. Transport Planning should support a pattern of development which, where reasonable to do so, facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport, giving people a choice. All developments generating a significant amount of movement should be supported with a Transport Statement or Assessment. Development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. Plans and decisions should ensure that development that generates significant movements are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised. Housing The key objective is to increase significantly the number of homes with a wide choice and opportunities for ownership, creating sustainable and inclusive communities. The supply should be at least 5% greater than the 5 year supply. Where there has been consistent under delivery, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% to provide a realistic prospect of achieving planned supply. Housing needs should be identified and met unless there are adverse impacts of doing so. They should set policies to meet affordable housing need. To deliver sites and a wide choice of high quality homes, local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing types and tenures, reflecting local demand; set policies for meeting affordable housing and set policies to create mixed and balanced communities.

5

Design The Government’s aim is to promote high quality and inclusive design over the lifetime of the development, and contribute positively to making places for better for people. Communities The Government’s objective is to create strong vibrant and healthy communities by creating a good quality built environment that facilitates social interaction and inclusive communities. To deliver service needs, decisions should plan for provision and integration of community facilities to enhance sustainable communities and residential environments. Access to good quality open spaces for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to health and well being. Planning should identify specific needs and use information to set standards to meet deficiencies. Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile land. Landscape Planning should contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and should aim to conserve and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting valued landscapes. Local planning authorities should take into account development on the best agricultural land where demonstrated to be necessary and seek to use poorer quality agricultural land in preference to that of a higher quality. In respect of ecology the Framework states that pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the natural environment, including moving from a net loss of biodiversity to achieving net gains for nature. The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures. Planning authorities should promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations, linked to national and local targets. Planning permission should be refused if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for. Heritage

6

The historic environment and its assets should be conserved and enjoyed for the quality of life they bring and in a manner appropriate to their significance. Local planning authorities should set out a strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment taking into account the desirability to sustain and enhance the significance of heritage assets and the desirability of new developments to make a positive contribution to local character and the wider benefits conservation can bring. Development should describe the significance of assets affected. Desk based assessments and field evaluations maybe necessary. Local planning authorities should use the assessments to consider impacts to heritage assets to avoid or minimise conflict. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:

the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and

the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, grade I and II* listed buildings or grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, should be wholly exceptional. Decision Making The planning system is plan-led. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Framework is a material consideration in planning decisions. Local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Other Material Considerations Charnwood Local Plan Core Strategy 2006 - 2028 The Charnwood Local Plan Core Strategy has been submitted to the Secretary of State and is currently the subject of examination. The Inspector wrote to the Council on the 22nd January 2015 following the close of the Core Strategy hearings to outline his main finding that whilst the submitted Core Strategy is not sound in a number of respects, it can be made sound with modifications. The Proposed Main Modifications

7

were published for six weeks public consultation between 13 April and 26 May 2015. The Core Strategy is therefore at an advanced stage in its preparation, objections to the strategy have been considered through the examination process and a series of modifications have been produced to resolve issues of soundness. As a result, the policies may be given greater weight in decision-making in accordance with paragraph 216 of the Framework. Policy CS1 – Development Strategy - provides the emerging Development Strategy for Charnwood. The policy sets out a settlement hierarchy for the Borough and the criteria for considering proposals within those settlements. The policy is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework. No modifications have been suggested to the structure of the hierarchy and there are not considered to be any unresolved objections to CS1 in this respect. Whilst objections were made to the placement of individual settlements within the hierarchy, there are no objections relating to Burton on the Wolds being classified as an “Other Settlement”. As no modification has been required this element of the policy may carry greater weight. In respect of “Other Settlements” which includes Burton on the Wolds the modifications include the provision for at least 500 new homes within settlement boundaries identified in our Site Allocations and Development Management Development Plan Document by between 2011 and 2028. Currently there are completions, commitments and strategic sites amounting to 887 new homes. The authority will meet the local social and economic need for development in other settlements by delivering the above development and:

responding positively to small-scale opportunities within defined limits to development;

responding positively to affordable housing developments in accordance with Policy CS3;

safeguarding services and facilities; and

responding positively to development which contributes to local priorities as identified in Neighbourhood Plans.

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. This policy is uncontested and may carry greater weight. Policy CS3 - Strategic Housing Needs - sets out affordable housing requirements and an appropriate mix of types, tenures and sizes of home. For developments in Burton on the Wolds there is a target of 40% on sites of 10 dwellings or more. This policy has been contested and therefore the weight it carries is limited. Policy CS11 - Landscape and Countryside - provides support and protection for the character of Charnwood’s landscape and countryside. New development should reinforce sense of place and local distinctiveness by taking account of landscape character assessments and should maintain separate identities of our towns and

8

villages. Tranquillity also needs to be taken into account and impacts mitigated by new development. Rural local need housing will be supported along with community services and facilities that meet proven local need identified by the community in an appropriate plan. This policy is uncontested and may carry greater weight. Policy CS13 - Biodiversity and Geodiversity –supports development that protects, enhances, restores or recreates bio-diversity. The impacts of development on important sites will need to be considered and taken into account. Development which results in loss of ecological or geological features will only be supported in exceptional circumstances where benefit of development clearly outweighs the impact on ecology and geodiversity. Where there are impacts on biodiversity adequate mitigation or compensation will be required. Where compensation is required the replacement provision should be or at least equal value and potential that that which would be lost, and is likely to provide a net gain in biodiversity. This policy is uncontested and may carry greater weight. Policy CS14 – Heritage - requires development to conserve and enhance historic assets for their own value and the community, environmental and economic contribution they make. This will be achieved by requiring development to protect heritage assets and their setting; supporting development which prioritises the refurbishment and re-use of disused or under-used building of merit; supporting development that is informed by and reflects relevant Landscape and Conservation Area Character Appraisals and Village Design Statements; and development that incorporates Charnwood’s distinctive local building materials and architectural details. This policy is uncontested and may carry greater weight. Policy CS15 - Open Spaces Sports and Recreation - requires new development to meet the standards set out in our Open Space Strategy; retaining open space, sport and recreation facilities where they are of value to the community; responding positively to development that meets provision identified in a robust community-led strategy or Neighbourhood Plan; and securing long term management and investment plans for existing and new facilities. Aspects of this Policy are uncontested and may carry greater weight. Policy CS16 - Sustainable Construction and Energy - seeks to adapt to and mitigate against the effects of climate change by encouraging sustainable design and construction and the provision of renewable energy where it does not make development unviable. The policy also seeks to encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has previously been developed providing that it is not of high environmental value; directing development to locations at the lowest risk of flooding; supporting developments that take opportunities to reduce flood risk elsewhere; requiring developments to manage surface water run off with no net increase in surface water runoff rates for greenfield sites; and supporting development that protects environmental assets including local air quality and most versatile agricultural land. This Policy is uncontested and may carry greater weight. Policy CS17 - Sustainable Transport - seeks to achieve a 6% shift from travel by private car to walking, cycling and public transport by requiring major developments to provide walking, cycling and public transport access to key facilities and services; requiring major developments to provide safe and well lit streets and routes for

9

walking and cycling that are integrated with the wider green infrastructure network; and securing new and enhanced bus services where new development is more than 400 metres walk from an existing bus stop. This Policy is uncontested and may carry greater weight. Policy CS25 – Delivering Infrastructure – seeks development to contribute to the reasonable costs of on site, and where appropriate off site, infrastructure through the use of legal agreements. This aspect of the policy is uncontested and may carry greater weight. Policy CS26 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development – This policy reflects the NPPF and reinforces the positive approach the Council will take in respect of sustainable development. This policy is uncontested and may carry greater weight. Affordable Housing (SPD) Both the adopted Borough of Charnwood Local Plan and the Affordable Housing SPD (2005) were prepared to reflect Government Guidance of that time. The NPPF no longer sets a national threshold and this part of the SPD no longer carries any significant weight. In the absence of an up to date statutory development plan policy (policy CS3 of the Core Strategy as stated above carries little weight) to guide the amount of affordable housing provision for sites, any relevant other material considerations must be taken into account. Appropriate material considerations include the two evidence studies, listed below, and the Charnwood Local Plan Core Strategy Policy CS3 - Strategic Housing Needs. Policy CS3 is, in effect, an expression of the evidence base and it is the evidence base that is a material consideration. Relevant evidence is set out in:

Affordable Housing Economic Viability Assessment (2010)

Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2008 about to be replaced by 2014)

Taken together, these material considerations point towards requests being made for affordable housing on sites of 10 or more dwellings requesting between 20-40% affordable housing depending on the location of the site and requesting a 80/20 split between social/affordable rent and intermediate housing (as set out in Policy CS3 of the emerging Core Strategy). In Burton on the Wolds the evidence base points to a target of 40% affordable housing being required in this case. S106 Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2007). The Supplementary Planning Document sets out the circumstances which might lead to the need for a contribution to the provision of infrastructure, community services or other facilities. However, recent appeal decisions have confirmed that Inspectors will not support obligations (even if agreed by the appellant) unless the planning authority can demonstrate that they are specifically related to the proposed development. Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (CIL), 2010 (as amended)

10

Regulation 122 prescribes the limitations on the use of planning obligations. Accordingly it is unlawful for a planning obligation to be a reason for granting planning permission, for a development that does not meet all of the following tests:

It is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

It is directly related to the development

It is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Leading in Design Supplementary Planning Document (February 2006) This encourages and provides guidance on achieving high quality design in new development. It indicates that the Council will approach its judgments on the design of new development against the following main principles:

Places for People – Successful developments contribute to the creation of distinctive places that provide a choice of housing and complementary facilities and activities nearby. Good design promotes diversity and choice through a mix of compatible developments and uses that work together to create viable places that respond to local needs.

Accessible Places – Successful developments are easy to get to and move through, with short, direct public routes overlooked by frontages.

Safe Places – Successful developments are safe and attractive with a clear division between public and private space. Good design promotes the continuity of street frontages and the enclosure of space by development which clearly defines public and private areas.

Sustainable Places – Successful developments are able to adapt to improve their long-term viability and are built to cause the least possible harm to the environment. It also incorporates resource efficiency and renewable energy measures to take into account the long-term impact of a development.

Distinctive Places – Successful developments respond to their context.

Open Space Sports Strategy (2012) The strategy aims to provide a framework to protect and improve open spaces and deliver good practice for new space. It identifies deficiencies across the Borough. Community priorities have been used to inform the Council’s priorities for rectifying shortfalls in open space provision. A new set of local standards based on areas per 1,000 population to be used for new developments following typologies in the previous Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 (PPG 17) including 1 facility within 480m for children and 2.6 ha per 1000 population of outdoor sports facilities, parks, amenity spaces and allotments. CABE/Design Council Building for Life 12

11

This guidance is an updated version of Building for Life 2008 which had 20 design criteria for developments. This has now been reduced to 12 criteria and is operated on a traffic light system to assess the suitability of development schemes and their locations in relation to design, layout, sustainability criteria, adaptability, effect of existing local character and reduction of crime, amongst other things. Planning Practice Guidance Design - The national guidance states that good design matters and that it can be achieved through good plan making and that poor design should be refused and planning should promote local character. New development should be integrated within existing surroundings. Flooding -Additional guidance is provided to ensure the effective implementation of the National Planning Policy Framework with the overall aim to steer new development to flood zone 1. Crime - Guidance confirms that designing out crime is central to the planning and the delivery of new development and that crime reduction measures should be based on a clear understanding of the local situation, to avoid problems and the causes of crime so as to ensure a safe community. Relevant guidance is also provided on aspects of air quality, noise, design, setting and significance of heritage assets, landscape, contaminated land, Community Infrastructure Levy, transport assessments and travels plans. Planning for Growth Ministerial Statement 2011 This emphasises that planning has a role to play in supporting economic growth. There is a priority in supporting sustainable economic growth, except where this compromises key sustainable development principles. The range of benefits of proposals to provide more robust and viable communities should be considered. Appropriate weight should be given to economic recovery. The 6Cs Design Guide The Highway Authority is one of six East Midlands authorities that have adopted the Design Guide for new development. The guide contains in Section DG6 - Public Transport, advice that pedestrian access to bus routes should generally, in urban areas, be a maximum of 400 metres and desirably no more than 250 metres. In rural areas the walking distance should not be more than 800 metres. Burton on the Wolds Village Design Statement This is Supplementary Planning Document, adopted in January 2006, provides a guide for individuals, developers and planners to reach the best decisions about changes to the structure and fabric of the village. It identifies the key issues and provides guidance to ensure changes enhance the existing environment. The key summary items are: to preserve protected species and their habitats, contain

12

development within the existing tree line and natural bowl, preserve existing boundaries, connections and pathways, future developments should be small scale, preserve trees and plant new ones and that building design should avoid monotonous repetition. Relevant Planning History None Responses of Statutory Consultees English Heritage English Heritage confirm that the proposal lies within the setting of the Grade I Listed Prestwood, Hall Grade II* St Andrews Church, the Grade II registered historic park and garden and that the site lies immediately adjacent the grade II Listed Field House on Seymour Road. The importance attached to setting is recognised by the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and in guidance, including the Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide (HEPPG) produced by English Heritage and endorsed by Government, and The Setting of Heritage Assets (English Heritage). The NPPF defines the setting of a heritage asset as ”the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced.” Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral. Significance can be harmed or lost through development within a heritage asset’s setting and any harm or loss to significance should require clear and convincing justification (paragraph 132 NPPF, and also HEPPG paragraphs 8 and 85). In this case the potential impact on the setting of numerous designated heritage assets must be carefully considered. Leicestershire County Council (Highways) The Highway Authority updated its comments following receipt of amended application details. The updated advice confirms that the residual cumulative impacts of the development shown in the amended details are severe, making reference to Paragraph 32 of the NPPF, and the Local Planning Authority is advised to consider a refusal on transport grounds for the reasons as:

1. The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have not been taken up. 2. Safe and suitable access to the site cannot be achieved for all people. 3. Improvements have not been offered to overcome the potential dangers,

particularly for pedestrians and cyclists. Leicestershire County Council (Access and Development Officer) The proposed surfaced route of Public Bridleway H106 and Public Footpath H99a is not along the legal Definitive line of the Public Rights of Way and the Public Bridleway is obstructed by the proposed Reed Bed. The officer therefore objects to

13

the application, recommending that the applicant either re-designs the layout of the development (to enable the Definitive Public Rights of Way to be unobstructed and surfaced along the legal line), or alternatively there is an application for a diversion of the Public Rights of Way onto the surfaced route shown on the layout plan. Leicestershire County Council (Children and Young People's Service) The site falls within the catchment area of Burton on the Wolds Primary School, Humphrey Perkins Academy and Rawlins Community College. The primary school has a net capacity of 175 and 167 pupils are projected on roll should this development proceed. This provides a surplus of 8 places after taking into account the 15 pupils generated by this development. There are currently no pupil places at this school being funded by S106 agreements from other developments in the area. An education contribution will therefore not be requested for this sector. The Academy (Secondary school) has a net capacity of 1,000 and 1,049 pupils are projected on roll should this development proceed, a deficit of 49 places after taking into account the 11 pupils generated by this development. However a total of 94 pupil places are being funded at this school from S106 legal agreements for other developments in the area. After taking these places into account the Academy has a forecast surplus of 45 pupil places. An education contribution will therefore not be requested for this sector. The College has a capacity of 500 and 613 pupils are projected on roll should this development proceed, a deficit of 113 pupil places. A total of 21 pupil places are being funded at this school from S106 legal agreements for other developments in this area which reduces the total deficit for this school to 92 (of which 90 are existing and 2 are created by this development). There are no other post 16 schools within a three mile walking distance of the site. A claim for an education contribution in this sector is therefore justified. In order to provide the additional post 16 school places anticipated by the proposed development, the County Council requests a contribution for the post -16 school sector of £38,269.24. This contribution would be used to accommodate the capacity issues created by the proposed development by improving, remodelling or enhancing existing facilities at Rawlins Community College. The contribution would be spent within 5 years of receipt of final payment. Leicestershire County Council (Library Services) The proposed development is likely to generate an additional 87 plus users and would require an additional 208 items of lending stock plus reference, audio visual and homework support material to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development on the local library service. Loughborough Library on Granby Street is the nearest local library facility 5.6 km from the application site and the requested contribution would be £1,810,

14

Leicestershire County Council (Waste Management) No Civic Amenity contribution is required at this time for this site. Leicestershire County Council (Landscape) No Landscape comments Leicestershire Constabulary Leicestershire Constabulary confirm that the lack of capacity in existing infrastructure to accommodate the population growth and associated demands occasioned by the development means that it is necessary for the developer of the site to provide a contribution to policing so the situation might be remedied. It is the view of the Leicestershire Constabulary that the request is directly related to the development and the direct Policing impacts that the development will generate based on an examination of demand levels in the local beat area, the settlement and existing Policing demands and deployment. They consider the request is wholly related to the scale and kind of the application development. A request for a contribution of £27,144 is made. Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust The Trust raised objections to the original proposal on the grounds of loss of wildlife corridors and loss of habitat for great crested newt and other amphibians. It recommended that a wider buffer zone (10 metres if possible) be provided adjacent to the brook as this will provide a much better corridor for great crested newts and toads and frogs (and possibly grass snakes) to migrate between breeding ponds and hibernation/refuge areas of scrub/woodland etc. It also recommended that fencing must be installed to prevent damage during construction. The Environment Agency The Agency considers that the proposed development will be acceptable subject to conditions requiring a surface water drainage scheme, the retention of a 10 metre ecology zone from the top of the bank of the Burton Brook, and noting that any ponds should be designed to encourage biodiversity as well as providing drainage benefits. Charnwood Borough Council (Environmental Services) Whilst the development meets Charnwood’s quantity standards for the total amount of open space on site the proposals do not address all typologies of provision. In particular, there is a lack of provision on site for young people, outdoor sport and allotments. An off-site contribution towards outdoor Youth/Adult Play within Burton on the Wolds is recommended, therefore, to address these shortfalls and address the increased demand the development will put on existing facilities and the ability to meet the needs of residents of the new development in the future.

15

In addition, proposals for the equipped children’s Play Area are poor, offering little in the range of play equipment and play value. It is recommended that additional items of equipment and/or revised multi-play unit are provided to ensure that the needs of children under 8 years are fully met. To ensure the long-term sustainability of proposals the arrangements for the future maintenance of on-site open space provision, including SUDS, should be agreed prior to development along with any associated financial maintenance contribution. Please note refuse/recycling vehicles require adequate access and operatives are not required to not walk further than 20 metres to collect refuse/recycling bins. It is recommended, therefore that suitable bin stores are provided if and where appropriate. Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) CPRE acknowledge that there have been some improvements to the proposed scheme but consider that they do not overcome the issues expressed previously. It therefore objects because the development conflicts with the Emerging Core Strategy which is now close to being adopted. There is no provision for housing in the village within the Inspectors proposed modifications. It is not a Service Centre. In addition, notwithstanding amendments to the proposed layout, it adversely affects the setting of a number of Listed Buildings and threatens the habitat of protected species including bats and the Great Crested Newt.

In addition the proposal is considered:

To have a reliance on travel by car and significantly increases traffic movements on an already busy road.

The access solution would require the destruction of more trees along the boundary thereby emphasising the visual intrusion of the new development.

The site is not well integrated into the village. Inadequate footpaths along the main road and all primary school children will have to cross the road to get to school.

The children’s play space location denies the security afforded by overlooking by properties.

It will result in the loss of productive agricultural land.

The architectural treatment of the proposed house types does not adequately reflect or enhance their village setting. Chimneys are a significant feature of the village but they are included on 11 units only.

The wider distribution of affordable homes across the site welcomed. Leicestershire and Rutland Bridleways Association The Association deplores the loss of delightful parcels of country such as Church Leys Field, Burton and developments which bring increased traffic to rural roads as these have to be used by riders, cyclists and walkers to get to, between and from the local bridleways. It states that the B676 is already considered over busy, and additional vehicles from developments must also affect the other roads in the wider area which are heavily used by resident horse-riders. Rural roads are now the most dangerous class of road. Concerns are raised in respect of the slight movement of

16

Bridleway H91 which is considered to be harmful to the character of the existing track. Made up strips are not best-liked by horses or their riders and are visually intrusive. Confining use to such a strip often allows weeds and plants to take over on the rest of the land and for biodiversity to be lost instead of increased. The Association consider it would be much better to leave an open strip of the full width proposed in the plans and allow usage to be the main means of controlling weeds and encouraging a wide range of plants. It would also lower maintenance costs and avoid the need to formally move the bridleway for which we would be looking for a 5 metre width in this situation. No objection is raised if the route across the Public Open Space in the north east corner of the site was made up in order to allow and encourage cyclists and pedestrians to exit on to Seymour Road. It states that provision needs to be made for the route of the permissive bridleway and suggestions are put forward. The proposed Village Gateway should be extended much further west so that the 30mph speed limit covers the exit of a bridleway from Seal’s Field. British Horse Society and the Leicestershire & Loughborough Bridleways Association The group raise concern regarding the increase in traffic on the roads through Burton and in all directions around the village especially as riders have to use various lengths of the B676. It states that the Burton stretch is particularly hazardous and anything that increases the traffic increases the danger to Vulnerable Road Users of all categories. Relocation of the permissive bridleway from the east to the west boundary is satisfactory but it requests that the route is dedicated as a public bridleway. Planting species alongside the bridleways is requested to be carefully chosen so that they do not intrude into the bridleway width at any height below 12 feet to take account of the headroom needed by horse-riders. It is requested that species used should not be too vigorous horizontally as these need frequent cutting back to preserve the essential width. Any footway behind the hedge on the site frontage should also be dedicated as a public bridleway as it would separate Vulnerable Road Users from traffic. Burton on the Wolds Parish Council The Parish Council objects to this planning application for a range of reasons detailed in their letters dated 6th December 2013, 10th September 2014, 8th October 2014, 5th December 2014 and 7th January 2015. In addition they note.that the recommendation to the Plans Committee meeting on 8th January 2015, at which this application was to have been considered, was for refusal. The first reason given for refusal was that 'the cumulative detrimental impacts of the development are considered to out weigh the benefits secured by the additional supply of housing and

17

the development is therefore considered to be unsustainable in an unsustainable location.' The cumulative detrimental impacts were then listed:

'The location has only limited local facilities and employment opportunities in close proximity therefore the proposal will rely on the private car.' Nothing has been done by the applicant to address this issue and it is not possible to do so.

'The proposal has poor public transport links and does not promote sustainable transport.' The poor public transport links remain the same; there are no revisions which can address this.

'The proposal will not provide a low carbon future.' This is still the case.

'The design and layout is a standard new development which does not reflect the local vernacular and has poor integration and visual relationships within the site and to the surrounding historic, built and natural environment as required by S66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.' The amended plan shows the LEAP now situated to the north of the site. Whilst it is desirable for the LEAP to be situated away from the B676, the proposed new location creates a further issue as it is now located in close proximity to the grade II listed Field House. The setting of Field House is further compromised by the location of plot 30 and the proposed trees. Charnwood Borough Council have a statutory duty to preserve the setting of this building and to give it great weight in the determination of this application.

'The proposal has significant impacts on biodiversity which results in significant harm without adequate mitigation, compensation measures or net gains in biodiversity being proposed.' We acknowledge that the developer has tried to keep the number of trees being removed to a minimum, but there will still be an adverse ecological impact due to the gap created for the road and the removal of established undergrowth to create visibility splays. These would result in a loss of connectivity for bats and habitat and foraging ground for other species. The removal of the trees identified on the arboricultural assessment may cause to damage the roots of adjacent trees, some if which may then also need to be removed. We welcome the widening of the tree belt to the south of the site, however, this mitigation may not be appropriate if landscaping trees are used, as is proposed. All new trees should be native trees of a type which are of greater benefit for ecological purposes and approved by the borough ecologist. The new trees should not be whips but of a similar size to the replacement trees recently planted in Springfield Close. In addition, it has still not been resolved as to who is going to manage the open spaces around this development.

A survey for a planning application for the adjacent Seymour House has identified that there are bat roosts in this locality. The introduction of any development in this field and the consequential light and noise will disturb the foraging corridors on all boundaries. It could also cause the bats to abandon their maternity roost, resulting in the loss of an entire colony. The sole reason that the Chairman of the Plans Committee deferred this application at the 8 January 2015 meeting was to enable the applicants to submit details of further highway improvements so that the impact on biodiversity and character of the street frontage could be assessed. The developer has now had the opportunity to

18

address these issues and have submitted their alterations to the village entrance. No suitable traffic calming measures are proposed and the installation of guard rails on the main road will be an ugly intrusion to the street scene. The following additional matters relating to sustainability cannot be addressed:

Limited local employment - The situation has worsened since the application was first submitted as the largest local employer, Eaton, formerly Cooper Bussmann, are now operating on skeleton staff.

Loss of open space - The loss of this well used amenity would be detrimental to the village.

Lack of village amenities - There are very limited amenities in Burton on the Wolds. There is no shop that provides for day to day needs, neither are there medical facilities, places of worship, a nursery or secondary school.

Transport - The lack of village amenities means that people have to rely on the use of a car. It is accepted that public transport links are poor, with no evening or Sunday service and no service to either of the doctors surgeries. The B676 is a designated HGV route and the excessive speeds of vehicles travelling along this stretch of road is well documented, meaning that it is not suitable for vehicles to safely leave this site, particularly as no adequate traffic calming measures are proposed.

School - The village school have a projected roll of 173 for the next academic year, the school has a maximum capacity of 175 and so significant funding will be required from the developer in order to accommodate the additional children that this development would generate. In addition, we know from experience that the County Council formula for predicting the number of children does not work, the children at the school who live at the recent development at Hubbard Road have far exceeded the County Council prediction.

Environment and Cultural Heritage - The proposed development would have a significant impact on the village, the character of the landscape as viewed by walkers from footpaths would be altered and it is particularly concerning that the village boundary would be moved to join the edge of Prestwold Park.

Agriculture - This land is currently productive, farmed land and should be kept as such.

However many times that this application is tweaked these substantial objections cannot be overcome. It is not sustainable and cannot be made sustainable. In terms of Layout and design the Parish Council comments as follows:

Density - The proposed density does not reflect the historic pattern locally, it is clear from the plan that the adjacent roads of Brickwood Place and Springfield Close are much less dense and nowhere in the village are there houses as densely laid out as in this design. This density means that there is insufficient open space for the people who would be living there.

House types - There is not a balanced mix of housing and the two bedroomed houses in particular are too small; smaller than any other houses in the village. The gardens are also far too small, the small houses with small gardens means that there is not adequate living space and it will not be a pleasant

19

place in which to live. We, along with the borough housing officer in his memorandum dated 14/11/2013, had asked for bungalows which would match other development in the village and meet the needs of an ageing population. There are incomplete house type references on the plan. The design and access statement refers to a change in house types, yet no new house plans have been submitted. If the house types used are the same type as have already been submitted then they are totally inappropriate for this rural setting; if they are a different type then we have not seen them and it is therefore not possible for us to properly assess this application.

Pavements - A significant proportion of the development has no pavements, this is not safe for children and the elderly and is therefore unacceptable.

Car parking - The proposed car park shown on the plan is completely inappropriate for a village setting. In addition, given that residents rely on private cars, the level of off-street parking is still not sufficient for the location.

Lighting - There is no indication of where lighting will be within the development or what type of lighting will be provided. Putting lighting near to bat roosts could cause major harm.

Visibility splays - The visibility splays are not adequate, the footpaths on Loughborough Road are very narrow and will not provide adequate visibility to cope with traffic at 43mph. It has been demonstrated in traffic surveys that this is the speed of vehicles at this point; moving the existing traffic calming measures further out of the village will not significantly alter the speed of traffic approaching the site.

Pedestrian access - The proposed pedestrian crossing point is located at a very narrow section of the road, at just 5.7m wide. With the guard rails in place two lorries would be unable to pass and the dropped kerb will only encourage lorries to mount the pavement.

Right of way - We note that the Rights of Way Officer has objected to the proposals as they affect Public Footpath H99a and Public Bridleway H106. We ask that the applicant applies for a diversion of the Pubic Rights of Way alongside the planning application, rather than waiting until it is determined.

The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people (NPPF para 56). Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions (para 64). As Charnwood Borough Council's Core Strategy is at such an advance stage it can be relied upon in areas where it is not disputed, as was the case in the recent decision at Nanpanton P/14/1754/2. The settlement hierarchy set out in CS1 should be given weight because the enquiry inspector has not called for any amendments to this policy and there were no significant objections to it. Development in villages such as this will only be approved where it meets specific local social or economic need identified by the community in an appropriate plan.

20

Details of an up-to-date housing needs survey were submitted in previous comments and it did not identify a need for houses of this type or quantity. The application is proposing major residential development on a greenfield site outside the identified limits to development. This site is not, therefore, one that the borough council would normally consider appropriate for development. Furthermore, the field is currently intensively farmed and the countryside footpaths and bridleways well used. These uses, together with its landscape value are the most effective use of this land and to build these houses would be also contrary to CS1. In addition, policy CS11 which seeks to protect character of Charnwood’s landscape and countryside has been passed by the core strategy inspector and should be given great weight in determining this application. The conflict with this policy was one of the reasons for recommending refusal at the January plans committee meeting. It is clear that none of the original reasons for recommending refusal have been addressed by the developer. The changes which have been made by the developer have, in addressing one problem, created another. We believe that the amended, high density, development is detrimental to the character of the village and the application should, therefore, be refused. NHS Primary Care There is only one GP practice in Barrow located in High Street. The new patients resulting from this proposed development are likely to register with this practice which has recently extended to meet the needs of previous new developments and further capacity would need to be achieved via an extension. A contribution of £30,127.68 is therefore requested to meet the demands of this new development. Charnwood Borough Council (Housing Strategy and Support Manager) The application includes provision for 30% affordable housing. The range and mix of units should broadly reflect the size and types of dwellings on the site. Natural England Natural England raises no objection based upon the information provided. It advises that the proposal is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes. It confirms that it has not assessed the proposal for impacts on protected species. Head Teacher of Burton on the Wolds Primary School The head teacher confirms that the school has 166 pupils on role and this number could increase due to a very good Ofsted inspection report. A request is made to ensure the school receives Section 106 money to cover the very likely rise in pupil numbers if the developments go ahead. The Chair of Governors to Burton on the Wolds Primary School The chair of the governors considers that the Department for Education Cost Multipliers used to calculate the number of pupils generated from a new development do not appear to reflect the true situation for the school catchment area. The estimate

21

of school numbers for the development compared to other developments does not appear to be consistent and neither is in line with the school’s current roll. Provision for natural movements in house sales in the catchment area is required since there is a general movement towards more young families with children in the village of Burton on the Wolds. As a governing body it feels strongly about having provision within the school for children in the currently developed catchment area. Governing Body of Burton on the Wolds Primary School The Governing Body considers that the pupil numbers anticipated by the Local Education Authority are not an accurate representation of the true impact on Burton on the Wolds Primary School. Recent developments have brought a much higher than anticipated number of children to the school and there is currently only capacity for 9 more children. The 13 pupils anticipated from this development is understated and the figure is likely to be in the region of 20-25 pupils. Funding from the developers should be sought for a new classroom, replacement of our current mobile classroom and a larger school hall to accommodate assemblies and school dinners. This expansion would increase the school’s capacity to 205 pupils, which is believed to be the maximum development the school could achieve whilst maintaining its high levels of education and safety for pupils.

Safety of pupils travelling to and from school is a concern. Pavements throughout the village are narrow and there is currently no safe crossing point for children living on the northern side of the main road. The suggested development would mean more children having to cross this busy road and more traffic through the village. Developers should fund a safe walking route to school to be in place before construction traffic arrives. Ideally this would be a pedestrian crossing so that children can cross and walk up through Springfield Close. The 30 mile per hour speed limit would need to be extended towards Loughborough so that cars are slowed down before they approach the crossing.

Parking spaces for the school are very limited. Currently parents are asked to park in the Towles Field car park when bringing children to school by car. This facility is already over capacity with the current number of children on roll and many parents have commented that “it is an accident waiting to happen”. Parents are encouraged to walk their children to school, but this is not always possible. The Council needs to consider how to address this issue if the development is approved.

Other comments received A total of 86 local residents raised objections to the initial consultation exercise on the application, 75 local residents objected to the second re-consultation and 61local residents have commented on the latest amended plans. They reiterate previous concerns raised and feel their objections still hold. The main concerns can be summarised as:

i) This remains a scheme that fails to reflect the character of the village, nor will it improve the lives of existing or future residents.

ii) The development is not sustainable

22

iii) This development will not satisfy any of the three dimensions to sustainable development; economic, social and environmental as identified in the National Planning Policy Framework

iv) The site is located in the non-PUA area which has a deliverable supply of housing land which exceeds the 5 year target including a 20% buffer. The Leicester PUA area is where development is required and employment and social needs of future occupiers are in Leicester.

v) Burton on the Wolds is not within the socio-economic district of Leicester nor is it possible to access Leicester easily by public transport.

vi) Regardless as to whether there is a 5 year land supply or that there is an up to date local plan the proposal is against the ethos of sustainable development because there are many adverse impacts and no real benefits.

vii) Economic role - land is good quality, intensively farmed arable land - it is located outside the defined limits to development - Local needs survey 2012 identified need in the local community for 5

dwellings - non-agricultural locations are available within the settlement. - growth within the community is not supported because there is no

employment available - infrastructure currently is poor and need to improve life in community is

not proposed. - requirement for fostering economic growth is not outlined

viii) social role - building another development like Hubbard Road is likely to create a

further decline in community cohesion - very few homes required - design quality is not high - too little open space to enable social interaction - few local services with no planned increase, increased pressure on

already overloaded primary school and secondary school/medical centre in neighbouring settlements

- village hall too small - culture well being not being improved

ix) environmental role - design not in keeping with character of village not enhancing built

environment but creates oppressive entrance - protected species habitat destroyed and at best fragmented - setting of grade ll listed building and historic park harmed - best and versatile agricultural land lost - green roof systems not used - lack of public transport necessitates car usage

x) The design is out of character with the surrounding area xi) the proposal is not in conformity with the adopted local plan xii) the land is not identified for housing in the emerging local plan xiii) Burton on the Wolds is considered to be a small village which is only

considered to be appropriate for small scale development to meet local needs or directly results in the protection or provision of new facilities and services

23

xiv) The area has poor and expensive transport infrastructure xv) There are few employment opportunities xvi) The applicant’s argument that only allowing small scale infill development

is flawed because it did not give the opportunity for infrastructure to be built as would be required for large scale developments is not accepted because no infrastructure is planned with this development.

xvii) Loss of open space which is considered o be important to residents and walkers

xviii) Poor communication in the area for mobile and broadband services xix) Increased pollution due to reliance on private car even for short journeys. xx) Requirements of Village Design Statement not taken into account xxi) Highway safety

- No improved footways on Loughborough Road - Measures to decrease vehicle speeds passing site - Provision of safe pedestrian crossing It has not been addressed by the applicant whether the required improvements will not have an impact on important features which are required to be retained and maintained to protect the habitat of protected species and the visual character of the village

Consideration of the Planning Issues The main considerations in the determination of this planning application are:

The principle of the development and its contribution towards housing land supply;

The impact on landscape and countryside;

The effect on highway safety;

The effect of the proposal on flooding;

The design of the development and the effect on residential amenity;

The effect of the proposal on ecology;

The effect on heritage assets;

The effect of the proposal on community infrastructure;

Developer contributions

The effect on agricultural land;

Sustainable Development - Economic issues - Social issues - Environmental issues

The Principle of the development and Housing Land Supply The starting point for decision making on all planning applications is that they must be made in accordance with the adopted development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Policies in the adopted Charnwood Local Plan are therefore the starting point for consideration, although the weight that is attached to these policies is dependant upon the degree to which they are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework.

24

The policies of the saved Local Plan set out a strategy for housing provision for the period 1991-2006 and are clearly therefore out of date, a position which has previously been acknowledged by the Council and been confirmed in a number of recent appeal decisions. The site is located on land outside the Limits to Development of the settlement and is therefore contrary to development plan policies ST/2 and CT/1 of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan 2004. Recent appeal decisions have indicated that in relation to the boundaries of settlements and countryside that this policy is out of date. The site is not therefore ordinarily one which would be considered necessary for development as it is contrary to the current adopted local plan policy CT/1. The Charnwood Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-2028 is at an advanced stage in its preparation and is capable of being given greater weight in accordance with paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Modifications required to provide a sound Core Strategy were published for public consultation on 13 April 2015 for 6 weeks. The development needs of the Borough are defined primarily through the provisions of the emerging Local Plan Core Strategy which seek to address the growth aspirations by having a priority location for growth in the Leicester Principal Urban area, with the majority of remaining growth being met at Loughborough and Shepshed. The vision for the Borough confirms that by the end of the plan period Charnwood will be one of the most desirable places to live, work and visit in the East Midlands. To achieve this development will have been managed to improve the economy, quality of life and the environment. As set out in the policy section above, Policy CS 1 of the Core Strategy provides the emerging Development Strategy for Charnwood. The policy sets out a settlement hierarchy for the Borough and the criteria for considering proposals within those settlements. The policy is consistent with the Framework and there was no discussion or suggestions for modification to the structure of the hierarchy relevant to Burton on the Wolds at the recent examination hearings. Whilst there have been some objections to the placement of individual settlements within the hierarchy, there are no significant unresolved objections relating to Burton on the Wolds or the element of the policy dealing with Other Settlements. The Proposed Main Modifications confirm 500 homes are to be provided by Other Settlements and that this figure has already been exceeded with regard to existing completions and committed development since 2011 with 778 new homes having being proposed or provided. The figures are expressed as being current at November 2014. This is above the minimum target identified within the submitted Core Strategy and shows that the Other Settlements have already provided more than the minimum intended through the proposed Development Strategy. Given the progress to the Proposed Main Modifications stage this aspect of Policy CS1 can be given greater weight.

The Development Strategy set out in Policy CS1 seeks, amongst other things, to respond positively to small-scale development proposals within settlement

25

boundaries for Other Settlements, including Burton on the Wolds, which contribute towards meeting local social and economic needs. The application is proposing major residential development on a greenfield site outside the identified limits to development for Burton on the Wolds. The site is therefore not ordinarily one that would be considered necessary for development. This would clearly be a less effective use of the site unless the development is shown to be necessary. Paragraph 112 of the NPPF also supports the view that the development of previously developed land should be encouraged. Paragraph 111 further confirms that where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality (Paragraph 112). The site was also not promoted as an alternative site in the recent Core Strategy examination as an alternative site to meet Charnwood’s development needs. In this case, other than there currently being a shortfall in the published five year housing land supply, it is has not been demonstrated that the release of this greenfield site is necessary to meet any local social or economic need. Notwithstanding the above, the Council does need to take into account of the need to demonstrate a five year supply of housing. In this context the Framework’s requirement to maintain a five year housing supply must be given appropriate weight in the determination of this planning application. Policy CS1 also requires development to safeguard services and facilities. The assessment of the effect on community services and facilities is carried out in more detail below with regard to comments of the statutory consultees and their requirements to meet the future needs of the development. However, a distinction needs to be drawn between whether the proposal is needed to safeguard those facilities, and whether the proposal would harm those services and facilities. There is no evidence that this development would be required to safeguard existing facilities and services to benefit residents of the development. The issue with regard to the principle of the development is whether the proposal would result in harm by resulting in the impacts that would lead to facilities and services being lost or prejudiced. It does not seem however that this proposal would be contrary to this aspect of Policy CS1 either. An Objectively Assessed Housing Need target of 820 homes per annum was accepted during the Examination Hearings on the Core Strategy. Using the Sedgefield method of calculation the latest estimates of housing supply as of the beginning of April 2015 show a 4.60 years housing supply across the Borough as a whole and takes account of sites that are awaiting completion of Section 106 agreements and appeal decisions. Using the Liverpool method the supply figure would be 5.01 years. At present, the Council does not have a robust 5 year supply of housing land across the Borough From the above it is clear that there is some significant doubt regarding the principle of major development on this site at the present time. This issue needs to be

26

carefully weighed in the planning balance given the detailed assessment of the other relevant planning considerations in this case, including the consideration of whether the proposal can be defined as sustainable development. This detailed assessment of relevant planning issues and sustainability follows in the remainder of this report. Impact on Landscape and Countryside As set out above, the application proposes development of a greenfield site, located in open countryside beyond the existing built up area of Burton on the Wolds. The development proposed would therefore be contrary to the provisions of paragraph 111 of the NPPF that states that planning decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed. It would also not comply with Policy CS 1 of the emerging Local Plan Core Strategy that encourages the effective use of land and, in Other Settlements, meeting needs within settlement boundaries. These material considerations must be given negative weight in the planning assessment of this application. New policies that relate to the assessment of development in the countryside have been tested by the Inspector through the recent Core Strategy examination hearings. There are no changes proposed to these policies in the Inspector’s Proposed Main Modifications published for public consultation on 13th April 2015. These policies can therefore be considered consistent with the Framework and be afforded greater weight In accordance with paragraph 216. Policy CS 11 Landscape and Countryside - provides support and protection for the character of Charnwood’s landscape and countryside. New development should reinforce the sense of place and local distinctiveness by taking account of landscape character assessments and should maintain separate identities of our towns and villages. Finally, in terms of residential development, the policy seeks to support residential development where this has a strong relationship with the operational requirements of agriculture, horticulture, forestry and other land based industries and contributes to a low carbon economy, as well supporting rural communities by allowing schemes for local needs in accordance with related policy. The application site is located within the Wolds Landscape Character Area (LCA). This area is noted within the Charnwood Landscape Character Assessment (2012) (CLCA) as having an elevated landform which dominates the landscape character with large agricultural fields with hedgerows and some isolated woodland. The area has a remote atmosphere with few isolated settlements, and although older settlements are generally well shielded by landform, views of more recent developments, specifically around Burton on the Wolds, are located on the rising valley slopes and create a discordant element in the landscape. The landscape strategies within the CLCA guide what change is thought desirable for a particular landscape character area. The strategy options are to Maintain, Enhance or Restore an existing landscape or create a new landscape. For the Wolds, the strength of landscape character is moderate and the landscape condition is moderate. In these circumstances the Landscape Strategy is to conserve and enhance the rural character of the rolling Wolds landscape. The guidelines for doing this confirm that built development should:

27

be focused within valleys and lower slopes to avoid breaking of horizon lines;

conserve long distance views across the landscape, particularly of the crest of ridges;

be carefully managed in prominent locations to minimise the impact on the open rolling landscape character; and

conserve the historical landscape features including field and roadside hedges.

The appraisal also states that the setting and roadside glimpses of Prestwold Hall and Church should be protected but the dilapidation of the brick Prestwold Estate wall gives significant concern. Wildlife corridors across the landscape need to be strengthened, in particular the field hedgerows and the function of small watercourses. Old ponds should be retained and enhanced and new ponds created and the creation and enhancement of wildlife habitats especially should be improved where they provide connectivity. It is acknowledged by the applicant that this site is prominent when viewed from public footpaths to the north and from locations surrounding and close to the site boundary but it is claimed that although open, it has little character and is a typical, relatively flat, urban edge site, in arable use, which has no particular features of merit. It is further submitted by the applicant that the site has a limited visual envelope, as it is contained by built development and existing tree belts and does not integrate well with the wider countryside. It is suggested therefore that the development would not impact upon the wider area. It is considered that the applicant’s submission in this respect is questionable, particularly given that the site is not relatively flat with little character. There would be longer distant views of the development across the fields from the north and the development from these views would not be seen against existing development. The development would likely result in a considerable intrusion in the Wolds landscape. Closer views from the footpath/bridleway that cross the site and from Loughborough Road, due to the loss of trees to create the access, would also result in significant visual intrusion as a result of an appreciable additional area of built form within these views. The proposed development on the application site is therefore considered likely to have a significant detrimental impact from these distant and close views. The development would therefore fail to meet the provisions of the CLCA guidelines with regard to preserving and enhancing the rural character. The breaking of existing horizon lines may be limited due to the presence of the trees surrounding the site but when viewed from Loughborough Road, through the access point, the development would be prominent and any glimpse of the landscape and horizon line to the north would be lost. The extent of the development proposed together with the new road access from Loughborough Road does not minimise the impact on the open rolling landscape character. The resulting significant gap and removal of hedgerow and trees to the road side does not conserve this recognised landscape feature. This together with proposed street lighting also has a significant detrimental impact on the important

28

wildlife corridor. It is acknowledged that the depth of the remaining hedgerow and trees along this frontage are proposed to be widened. However, the wildlife connectivity route across the site will be significantly affected and disturbed. This aspect of the proposed scheme therefore runs contrary to the retention and enhancement strategy in the CLCA. The woodland to the west of the site forms the eastern boundary to Prestwold Park (a Historic Park) and the setting to Prestwold Hall (Grade I) and Church (Grade II*) Listed Buildings. It is claimed that this woodland helps to contain the development in the landscape setting. However the CLCA requires the setting of Prestwold Hall and Church to be protected. It is considered that the significant encroachment into the gap between the settlement boundary and the historic park to would result in substantial harm to the setting of the Park and thus the setting of the Hall and Church and therefore does not meet the requirements of the assessment. Overall there are considered to be significant landscape impacts resulting from the proposed development when taking account of the need to conserve and enhance the rural character of the rolling Wolds landscape as required by the strategy set out in the CLCA 2012 and the provisions of Policy CS11 of the emerging Local Plan Core Strategy. The proposed development would result in a significant expansion to the existing settlement to the north of Loughborough Road and between the existing settlement and Prestwold Park. Given the above context, it is concluded that there would be significant landscape and visual impacts from the proposal. The proposal would therefore fail to protect landscape character and reinforce sense of place and local distinctiveness as required by policy CS11 of the Charnwood Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-2028. The effect on highway safety The Local Highway Authority advice is that the residual cumulative impacts of the amended development scheme are severe with reference to Paragraph 32 of the NPPF and the Local Planning Authority is advised to consider a refusal on transport grounds because:

The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have not been taken up. Safe and suitable access to the site cannot be achieved for all people. Improvements have not been offered to overcome the potential dangers

particularly for pedestrians and cyclists.

Vehicle speed measurements in the Transport Statement submitted with the planning application confirm that the speed of passing traffic on Loughborough Road is high. The 85th percentile speeds were above 40mph in each direction. In order to provide a safe access and safe crossing point, these vehicle speeds need to be significantly reduced to be more in line with the speed limit.

A traffic calming scheme including vertical features (road humps) has previously been submitted as part of this application which were considered by the LHA to ensure that vehicle speeds passing the site, and perhaps more importantly approaching the pedestrian crossing, were reduced to an appropriate level so that

29

pedestrians could safely cross the road. However, in light of the strong local objections to the traffic calming scheme, it was decided that such a scheme would be very unlikely to be approved when it came to the required public consultation stage, and therefore the Highway Authority advised the developer that an alternative scheme would be required, that did not include vertical features. The Highway Authority suggested a scheme that included a build out (to provide a carriageway narrowing where traffic entering the village would give way to vehicles leaving the village) and a zebra crossing (so that pedestrians would have a safe crossing point where they would have an element of priority when crossing the road). The latest plans however do not offer any alternative form of traffic calming other than the gateway treatment, and do not include a zebra crossing. Whilst the gateway feature will help reduce vehicle speeds, it is very unlikely that it will have a sufficient impact to reduce vehicle speeds to an acceptable level to provide a safe access/crossing point. As such pedestrians trying to cross the busy Loughborough Road would have difficulties crossing, especially children. Without the benefit of reduced speeds and a zebra crossing future occupants may decide that crossing the road would be too dangerous and instead would use their cars, which is contrary to the current aims of encouraging the use of sustainable travel options.

Given the high speeds of traffic on Loughborough Road, it is considered likely that residents may also be deterred from cycling as a form of transport to and from the site.

The proposed internal layout of the site is generally considered acceptable for adoption. However if planning permission is to be granted for the proposal, then bend widening will be required to the carriageway area fronting proposed plots 54 and 53 to accord with the 6c’s Design Guide and the grass verge adjacent to plots 21 - 23 should incorporate knee rail guard fencing or bollards offset 450mm from the carriageway edge to mitigate against haphazard parking on the grass verge.

It is therefore concluded that the proposal as submitted, has not demonstrated that the site will be served by a safe access for all highway users and particular a safe crossing point for pedestrians.

The effect of the proposal on flooding

Local concerns have been raised regarding flooding and the impact this development could have on local flooding problems in the future. Because of the size of the proposed development and its location, the application was accompanied by a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and a Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUD's) scheme. Having considered these application submissions and identifying that the site lies within Flood Zone 1, where national planning policy seeks to steer any new development, the Environment Agency has raised no objection to the proposal subject to full details of the drainage scheme for the site being submitted. Details of the drainage scheme for the site can be conditioned to ensure they meet the needs of all interested parties and any adopting body. It is considered that subject to the inclusion of such conditions, the scheme is capable of being developed

30

without adversely affecting areas from flooding inside or outside the development site.

The design of the development and the effect on residential amenity

The application is a full detailed proposal which has been amended to take account comments made. The revisions to the scheme provide a design and quality which are considered sufficient to reflect the character and appearance of the village of Burton on the Wolds. The development takes the form of a modern housing estate on the edge of the settlement utilising standard house designs but the layout does take account of the visual relationships to existing properties located to the east and the space between building standards are met. The Framework at paragraph 61 recognises that visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are very important factors, securing high quality and inclusive design that goes beyond aesthetic considerations. Therefore, planning policies and decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment as required by section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. At paragraph 64 it continues to state that planning permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions. The amended scheme extends footpaths alongside the proposed sustainable drainage system to incorporate it into the layout. There have been improvements from the original scheme to the ecological corridors which cross the site and it is now clear the proposed highway improvements will affect the visually important hedge on the Loughborough Road frontage but this impact has been limited by proposing to strengthen the hedge and trees that will remain with further planting. It is therefore considered that the amended design and layout does include aspects which provide improvements to the character and quality of the area but overall taking into account the requirements of Policy CS2 of the emerging Local Plan Core Strategy which requires high quality, inclusive design the balance against impact is considered to be neutral. Impact on neighbouring residential amenity has been carefully considered. Those properties most directly affected back on to the eastern boundary of the site. The submitted plans indicate retained and improved hedgerow planting and that development accords with the saved policies EV/1 and H/16 of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan and Leading in Design Supplementary Planning Document. There is therefore no evidence that the proposal would have a significant or demonstrably detrimental impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers sufficient to warrant the refusal of planning permission.

The effect of the proposal on ecology

31

The site contains distinctive ecological zones including bat corridors which will be fragmented by the proposals. Great crested newts and 7 species of bats will be affected by the proposed development and the layout as amended is still not considered to be fully sympathetic to biodiversity and may result in significant habitat loss and fragmentation of wildlife corridors, leading to an impoverished ecological network contrary to Policy CS13 of the emerging Local Plan Core Strategy. In this case, although mitigation measures are proposed with regard to ecological impacts, those measures are not considered to be robust enough to overcome the loss in biodiversity because of the fragmentation of the wildlife corridors that cross the site which would occur if planning permission is granted. It is considered that the development proposed would therefore be contrary to the relevant provisions of the NPPF as noted earlier in this report. Pursuant to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 a planning authority must, in the exercise of their functions, have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive so far as they may be affected by the exercise of those functions. Where protected species may be disturbed, this includes consideration of whether a licence is likely to be granted by Natural England for such disturbance. There is no evidence that the scheme will disturb any protected species and mitigation measures are proposed to protect Great Crested Newts. It is therefore unlikely that a licence will be required. The impact on connectivity routes is however considered to be significant and there are no compensation measure put forward to overcome these issues. These environmental impacts have to be considered alongside the issues already identified in respect of the economic and social impacts in the assessment as to whether the proposal is sustainable.

The effect on heritage assets

The layout and design of the scheme has been amended to protect the views to the adjacent Listed Buildings Field House (32/34 Seymour Road (Grade II) from the public footpath by opening out the public open space and introducing frontage development onto this area rather than significant garage blocks. It is considered that the amended scheme thus has a neutral impact on the setting of this heritage asset. The other local heritage assets in close proximity to the site include Prestwold Hall Estate wall, woodlands, historic park and garden that surround Prestwold Hall which are Grade II listed; Prestwold Hall is Grade I Listed and St Andrew’s Church is Grade ll*. It is considered that it would be difficult to accommodate the proposed development in this location without impacting detrimentally on the setting of these heritage assets. The setting is considered to be the estate being surrounded by open countryside and the main outlook to and from the Estate is across typical open rolling Wolds countryside with the settlement of Burton on the Wolds some distance away. The encroachment into this view resulting from this development is considered to be a significant impact on the setting of these historic features and will not conserve and enhance these heritage assets. It would thus be contrary to policy CS14 of the emerging Local Plan Core Strategy and would result in harm to the setting of a grade

32

II listed park or garden. Substantial Harm should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. It would also result in harm to designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably grade I and II* listed buildings and substantial harm should only be allowed in wholly exceptional circumstances.

Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral. Significance can be harmed or lost through development within a heritage asset’s setting and any harm or loss to significance should require clear and convincing justification (paragraph 132 NPPF, and also HEPPG paragraphs 8 and 85). Paragraph 134 of the Framework states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. Paragraph 137 requires proposals to preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset. In addition to planning policy under the Framework, the Council has a statutory duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess (section 66 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990) and give considerable importance and weight to any harm caused. Given the above assessment, it is also considered that there is negative weight to be attached in the assessment of the proposal to the detrimental impact it will have on designated heritage assets. The effect of the proposal on community infrastructure

Burton on the Wolds’ ability to cope with further development has also been raised as an issue in consultation responses and an assessment is required to assess whether the proposal would continue to safeguard services and facilities and whether an appropriate level of services and facilities are available to serve the development. Burton on the Wolds is identified in the Core Strategy as an “Other Settlement” which does not have access to a good range of services or facilities and residents rely largely on the private car for their day to day needs. It is accepted that there is a primary school, village hall, local recreational facilities, a petrol filling station/shop, a public house and there is also an hourly bus service that operates between Loughborough, Melton and Grantham (no service on Sundays, bank holidays or evenings). There is also access to limited employment opportunities locally but access to a secondary school, weekly food shops, a post office, doctor’s surgery, and to a wide range of recreation, leisure and community facilities requires public transport or the use of a car. Local recreational facilities and amenity space is proposed to be provided onsite and improvements to youth facility are proposed within the village through appropriate contributions secured by a Section 106 legal agreement in the event of planning permission being granted. There are no proposals that any contributions would be

33

spent outside the village for leisure and recreation. The provision of recreational and leisure facilities would comply with Policy CS1 of the Charnwood Local Plan 2006-2028 and complies with the requirements of the Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations 2010 . Of particular concern to residents, as raised in the consultation response, are the effects on educational services and health services. Neither of the statutory consultees has indicated that the development would put undue strain on these community services or suggested that the increase in numbers of residents could not be incorporated into expanding existing facilities. Similarly Library facilities and the police require contributions to make the development acceptable. If planning permission is granted these contributions could be secured by way of a Section 106 legal agreement. It is considered that the proposal without these contributions would have an unacceptable impact on social infrastructure that would serve the development, notwithstanding the distance and difficulties accessing the services other than by private car. Developer Contributions Requests have been made to secure improvements to existing community infrastructure from the relevant consultation bodies. These requests have to be tested against the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010. Policy ST/3 of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan and Policy CS25 of the emerging Core Strategy provides for opportunities to secure improvements to infrastructure where there are deficiencies identified by consultees. This is supported by the Council’s Section 106 Contributions Supplementary Planning Document. The contributions requested are assessed below: Affordable housing - The application includes provision for 30% affordable housing. The range and mix of units proposed are accepted by the Council’s Housing Strategy and Support Manager to be appropriate for the site. Although this is contrary to the evidence which sets a current target of 40% in the emerging Core Strategy, the amount proposed was appropriate and negotiated during the course of the application. It is therefore considered on balance reasonable not to require the higher percentage of affordable housing in this particular case. Education - The site falls within the catchment area of Burton on the Wolds Primary School. The School has a net capacity of 175 and 167 pupils are projected on roll should this development proceed; a surplus of 8 places after taking into account the 15 pupils generated by this development. There are currently no pupil places at this school being funded by S106 agreements from other developments in the area. An education contribution will therefore not be requested for this sector. The site falls within the catchment area of Humphrey Perkins Academy. (Secondary school) The Academy has a net capacity of 1,000 and 1,049 pupils are projected on roll should this development proceed; a deficit of 49 places after taking into account the 11 pupils generated by this development. However a total of 94 pupil places are being funded at this school from S106 agreements for other developments in the

34

area. After taking these places into account the Academy has a forecast surplus of 45 pupil places. This site falls within the catchment area of Rawlins Community College. The College has a capacity of 500 and 613 pupils are projected on roll should this development proceed; a deficit of 113 pupil places. A total of 21 pupil places are being funded at this school from S106 agreements for other developments in this area which reduces the total deficit for this school to 92 (of which 90 are existing and 2 are created by this development). There are no other post16 schools within a three mile walking distance of the site. A claim for an education contribution in this sector is therefore justified. In order to provide the additional post 16 school places anticipated by the proposed development, the County Council requests a contribution for the post 16 school sector of £38,269.24. This contribution would be used to accommodate the capacity issues created by the proposed development by improving, remodelling or enhancing existing facilities at Rawlins Community College. The contribution would be spent within 5 years of receipt of final payment. This request is subject to restrictions on the pooling of S106 contributions. There are ongoing discussions with service providers regarding the implementation of provisions of the CIL Regulations and these issues will be progressed by officers and infrastructure providers as required to seek resolution of the Regulation 123 issues. Libraries - The proposal would be likely to result in an additional demand placed on existing library services. The proposed development would lead to approximately 87 plus users and 208 additional items being required. The proposed request is for £1,810. This contribution would be spent at Loughborough Library on Granby St which is within 5.6km from the site. It is considered that this request is in scale and necessary to make the development acceptable based on meeting the identified needs of future occupiers of the development. This money would be spent within 5 years of the development commencing. It is considered that the proposed request complies with the requirements of the Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations 2010. This request is subject to restrictions on the pooling of S106 contributions. There are ongoing discussions with service providers regarding the implementation of provisions of the CIL Regulations and these issues will be progressed by officers and infrastructure providers as required to seek resolution of the Regulation 123 issues. Health Facilities - NHS England is requesting a capital contribution of £30,127.68 from the developer to enable the extension of the GP practice at High Street Barrow to increase the capacity of the surgery to deal with the additional population. This contribution would be spent on extending the the building within 5 years of the money being received. It is considered that the proposed request complies with the requirements of Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations 2010 given it is an identified need, well related to the development and a there is a project identified. It is recognised that cost are only estimates at this time, all be it from a quantified surveyor, as such the contributions will be paid to the Borough Council and released when details of the extension and appropriate evidence are provided to ensure the final scheme is CIL compliant. This request is subject to restrictions on the pooling of S106 contributions. There are ongoing discussions with service providers regarding the implementation of

35

provisions of the CIL Regulations and these issues will be progressed by officers and infrastructure providers as required to seek resolution of the Regulation 123 issues. Police - Leicestershire Constabulary request contributions towards the upgrade of premises and equipment to ensure the costs of servicing the development, whilst maintaining current levels of service, do not divert current policing resources. The Police’s claim for this site is submitted using their revised methodology in order to demonstrate that it meets the 3 statutory tests set out in Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended). Leicestershire Constabulary has stated that the development is likely to result in an increased demand for their services and have identified the key areas concerned. The Council’s Section 106 Developer Contributions SPD (2007) explains that some contributions for Policing can be justified including contributions to new Police Stations or extensions to new stations provided they comply with planning obligations rules in the CIL Regulations

Item amount

Start up equipment £2,939

Vehicles £1,691

Additional radio call capacity £135

PND additions £87

Additional call handling £184

ANPR £2,055

Mobile CCTV £375

Additional premises £19,558

Hub equipment £120

Total £27,144

In this instance, it is concluded that the request is justified and meets the tests of Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations. This request is subject to restrictions on the pooling of S106 contributions. There are ongoing discussions with service providers regarding the implementation of provisions of the CIL Regulations and these issues will be progressed by officers and infrastructure providers as required to seek resolution of the Regulation 123 issues. Highways - The Highway Authority has requested the following provisions should planning permission be granted, in the interests of encouraging sustainable development:

36

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 – NOTE it is very unlikely that a development will get 100% take-up of passes, 25% is considered to be a high take-up rate);

It is considered that these requests are commensurate with the scale of the proposed development and directly related to it and meet Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations requirements. Recreation - The development will result in the need to provide the adequate children’s play space and requisite facilities on site to meet the requirements of policies RT/3, these are proposed in the scheme and commuted sums for maintenance is also required. In accordance with the requirements of this policy and the SPD on S106 developer contributions is necessary for appropriate provision is to be provided on site and it is considered that these would be at least commensurate with the scale of development and therefore meet Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations requirements. This request maybe subject to restrictions on the pooling of S106 contributions. There are ongoing discussions with service providers regarding the implementation of provisions of the CIL Regulations and these issues will be progressed by officers and infrastructure providers as required to seek resolution of the Regulation 123 issues. The effect on agricultural land

The proposal would involve the loss of agricultural land. The agricultural land according to the applicant falls within grade 3b (moderate) and would not therefore be considered Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land. This is particularly relevant to the requirements of paragraphs 111 and 112 of the NPPF which states that, the effective use of land should be encouraged and where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality. The necessity to develop this site is predicated on the lack of a deliverable five year housing supply. Recent permissions have seen housing sites released on the basis that their contribution towards the Council’s five year housing supply outweighs other policy considerations. If a five year housing supply can be demonstrated, this suggested necessity would not be available and there would be a limited case for releasing this greenfield site in this case. There is also no specific identified local social or economic need and there is sufficient committed and completed development, as set out in the Inspector’s Proposed Main Modifications currently out to public consultation, to meet the planned

37

requirements for development in “Other Settlements” up to 2028. The use of this greenfield, agricultural site can therefore not be viewed as either a necessary or effective use of land when taking account of the provisions of the NPPF or policies of the emerging Charnwood Local Plan Core Strategy. This proposed significant loss of agricultural land has to be weighed against the proposal in the planning balance when determining the application. This will be carried out below.

Sustainable Development Many of the objections have raised concerns about the sustainability of the development site. The Framework advises that there are three dimensions to sustainable development and these include:

Economic – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; any by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure;

Social – 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 environment, with accessible local services that reflects the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and

Environmental – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and as part of this, helping to improve bio-diversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.

Economic There are limited employment opportunities within the village and whilst the applicant claims the site is within 1 mile of an industrial site, the number of jobs available is stated to be up to 400. This is disputed by local residents. It is considered that accessibility to employment opportunities is very limited without relying on the use of the private car. There may be short term employment opportunities during the construction phase of the development but these would be the same for any development site and are not long term. An Inspector in considering an appeal at Wymeswold (application reference P/12/2117/2) for up to 32 dwellings, a significantly smaller scale of development, identified that Wymeswold has more facilities than Burton on the Wolds and the decision relied partly on job opportunities at Wymeswold Airfield. These job opportunities are now considered to be based on outdated information. The Inspector concluded that, on balance, the appeal proposal was at least neutral in the context of sustainable development within the overall meaning as set out in paragraph 7 of the Framework. It is considered that this proposal has greater negative impacts than the proposal at Wymeswold and is therefore not sustainable from an economic perspective.

38

Social Burton on the Wolds is identified as an ‘Other Settlement’ in the Council’s Settlement hierarchy in the Core Strategy, with limited access to a range of services or facilities and where existing households rely largely on the private car for their day to day needs. As identified above, the village has a primary school, village hall, a petrol filling station/shop, and a public house and there is also an hourly bus service that operates between Loughborough, Melton and Grantham (no service on Sundays, Bank Holidays or evenings). However there is no church/church hall, library, post office, medical services, secondary school, banks or other financial services which are easily accessible from the site. The available bus services do not link directly to the local facilities which are mainly based in Barrow upon Soar and East Leake. It is therefore considered that Burton on the Wolds has very limited access to services and facilities and therefore only small scale developments, within settlement limits, to meet local social and economic needs, should be accepted. This is recognised in the provisions of emerging policy CS1. This proposal clearly would not meet these parameters and would therefore be considered unsustainable from a social perspective. Environmental Finally, there are three elements to the environmental dimension of sustainable development: the natural, built and historic environment. The site comprises Grade 3b agricultural land located in the Wolds and is considered to be moderate in both landscape condition and strength of landscape character in the Borough of Charnwood Landscape Character Assessment and the landscape strategy is to conserve and enhance the landscape. Policy CS1 and relevant provisions of the NPPF seek to ensure meeting planned housing delivery through the effective use of land. The priority is to bring forward development located within the existing built up area. The proposed development, while contributing towards the five year housing supply, does not meet any particular housing need and there is no evidence to confirm that there is not sufficient capacity within the existing built up area to meet any future needs. There would clearly be some urbanising impact on existing views both out of and towards the current built up area of the settlement, as noted in the landscape and countryside section of this report. This would result in negative impacts on the visual amenity of the local area and the landscape, as highlighted above. The proposal also results in negative impacts on the ecology of the site and although there are some benefits there is considered to be a net loss of biodiversity because of the detrimental impact the scheme has on the bat corridors and the benefits do not result in net gains for nature as required by the NPPF.

39

Taking these factors into account, it is considered that the site does not support the environmental dimension of sustainable development with regard to the natural environment. With regard to the built environment, the site is currently open land and has an intrinsic rural quality as identified in the landscape and countryside section of this report and therefore does not meet the environmental dimension of sustainable development with regard to the built environment. With regard to the historic environment special regard is required to the desirability of preserving the listed buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess (section 66 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990) and considerable importance and weight should be given to any harm caused. The proposal maintains the setting of the Grade ll Listed property Field House through the layout, although the design of the dwellings are modern and therefore the impact is considered to be neutral. The proposal is considered to have a negative impact on the setting of the historic Parkland and thus in turn on the setting of the Grade l Listed Prestwold Hall and Grade ll* Church because the parkland provides the setting for these buildings. The significant encroachment into the countryside, reduction in the openness and loss of views across the rolling Wolds countryside to the parkland and back to the settlement are considered to amount to significant detrimental impacts on the setting of designated heritage assets. The development does not therefore preserve or enhance the setting and is contrary to the emerging Core Strategy Policy CS14, the NPPF and legislative requirements. Given the above context, it is considered that there are negative attributes that have been identified which lead to the conclusion that the development proposed would not be sustainable when assessed against the three roles of sustainable development set out in the NPPF and the aspirations of emerging policy CS26 in the Local Plan Core Strategy. The site is located in open countryside beyond the existing built up limits of the village. It is recognised that the limits to development as identified in the Charnwood Local Plan are out of date. However, the Framework requires in its core principles at Paragraph 17 to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The Framework requires the promotion of sustainable development in rural areas and housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. It is considered from the evidence submitted that the proposal does not contribute positively to supporting services in the village or neighbouring settlements. Taking all of the above factors into account it is considered that the proposed development is unsustainable when assessed against the three roles of sustainable development as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. Conclusion

40

The central issue in this application is the need to balance the requirement to make land available for new housing, as set out in the Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework, against the impact of new housing development on the edge of an Other Settlement including, in particular, the impact on the landscape, the loss of agricultural land, the impact on heritage assets, the impact on ecology, the impact on the road network and highway safety, and the sustainability of the proposed development in this location. All applications are required to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. At the current time, significant progress has been made towards meeting the deliverable five year housing land supply required by the Framework as well as putting in place the up-to-date policy base for the Borough which provides the local expression of sustainable development compliant with the NPPF. Ultimately there is a need to assess whether the proposal results in sustainable development. To assist in this assessment, the benefits and adverse impacts of this application proposal are considered to be the following:

Benefits Adverse impacts

Economic role Short term employment (construction)

Lack of local employment opportunities and no long term employment provided

Social Role Contribution to 5 year housing land supply including affordable housing.

Not required to safeguard existing facilities and services

Identified as Other Settlement where existing completions and committed developments exceed minimum target in Core Strategy

Environmental role

Open countryside location outside limits to development

Loss of agricultural land and a less effective use of land

Adverse landscape and visual impact failing to meet provisions of CLCA

Adverse impact on highway safety and opportunities for sustainable transport modes have not been taken up

Adverse impact on setting of heritage assets with no benefits

Adverse impact on ecology with limited mitigation

41

Reliance on private car and no evidence of moving to low carbon economy

The test from the NPPF is whether any adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, including the contribution to the five year supply of housing resulting from development on this site. In this instance, it is concluded that the proposal is contrary to the adopted development plan and policy CT/1. However, in the context of housing supply, this policy is out of date. Material considerations are capable of outweighing this conflict. Policy CS1 of the emerging Charnwood Local Plan Core Strategy expresses the Development Strategy for the Borough up to 2028. The Core Strategy is at an advanced stage in its preparation and is capable of being given greater weight in accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF. Proposed Main Modifications required to provide a sound Core Strategy were published for public consultation on 13th April 2015. In respect of the development plan the relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if it can not be demonstrated that the Council has a 5 year supply of housing sites. Given this current position significant weight can be given to the Development Strategy as expressed in Policy CS1. This weight can be given to both the hierarchy and the number of homes planned within the Other Settlements, of which Burton on the Wolds is one. It is clear from the Proposed Main Modifications that the Other Settlements have sufficient committed or completed development to meet the planned housing requirement up to 2028. The planned requirement is for 500 homes of which there were 887 units either completed or committed at November 2014. Nevertheless, there still has to be an assessment of whether the development would be sustainable and the proposal considered on its merits regarding the level of harm that would be caused, and whether this is significant and demonstrable when assessed overall. In relation to whether the proposed development of the site is sustainable, the table above sets out considerations that can be viewed as being the benefits and adverse impacts from the proposal. Whilst it is considered that there are some benefits, it is not considered that these outweigh the harm resulting from the adverse impacts identified. In terms of the benefits, the proposal would provide a contribution towards meeting the current shortfall in the Council’s five year land supply and provide some affordable housing. There would also be some limited benefits that could be claimed with regard to economic impacts during construction. However, there are also several adverse impacts from the proposed development. The proposal would be contrary to Policy CS1 of the emerging Core Strategy which sets out the Development Strategy for the Borough up to 2028. This is a greenfield site, located outside the built-up area of an identified Other Settlement, where there is no under-provision of supply against planned development needs and no

42

recognised local housing need has been identified. It is considered that the site also has limited access to services and facilities; the development will have negative impacts on landscape and visual amenity; the proposal will not be an effective use of land (using moderate agricultural land when it has not been shown to be necessary); the proposal will have a negative impact on the ecology of the area without adequate mitigation measures being proposed; it will have a severe impact on highway safety because of inadequate traffic calming measures being proposed and the development will also have a significant detrimental impact on the setting of designated heritage assets. It is considered that cumulatively, the adverse impacts of the development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits and that the development proposed would not be sustainable. This assessment takes into account the significant progress that has been made to delivering both a sustainable and NPPF compliant Development Strategy and a deliverable 5 year supply of housing land against the up to date objectively assessed housing needs for the Borough. There is therefore, on balance, a planning objection to the adverse impacts of this proposed development. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Inspectorate be informed that planning permission would have been refused for the following reasons. 1. Whilst it is acknowledged that the Council is not currently able to demonstrate the availability of a five year supply of housing land and there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, the cumulative detrimental impacts of the development are considered to out weigh the benefits secured by the additional supply of housing and the development is therefore considered to be unsustainable. The cumulative detrimental impacts of this proposal are significant and demonstrable and comprise the following:

The location has only limited local facilities and employment opportunities in close proximity therefore the proposal will rely on the private car

The proposal has poor public transport links and does not promote sustainable transport.

The proposal will not provide a low carbon future

The development intrudes on the open rolling countryside landscape of the Wolds between the settlement of Burton on the Wolds and designated heritage assets. It is considered to have a negative impact on the setting of these heritage assets and therefore does not integrate the new development into the natural, built and historic environment as required by section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The proposal has negative impacts on biodiversity which results in significant harm without adequate mitigation, compensation measures or net gains in biodiversity.

The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims of paragraph 6, 7, 14, and 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework and does not constitute sustainable development. The proposal is also contrary to Policies CS1, CS2, CS3, CS11, CS13,

43

CS14, CS16, CS17 and CS26 of the Charnwood Local Plan Core Strategy 2006- 2028 and policies ST/1, ST/2, EV/1, EV/17, EV/20, H/16, CT/1 CT/2, TR/1 and TR/6 of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan 2004, with weight being given to such policies according to their consistency with the National Planning Policy Framework. 2. The developer has not demonstrated that a safe form of access, particularly for vulnerable highway users such as pedestrians and cyclists will be provided to serve the site. Given the speed and volume of traffic on Loughborough Road, the proposed uncontrolled pedestrian crossing is not considered appropriate or safe and therefore the proposal would create severe dangers for pedestrians and could deter residents from walking whereas sustainable methods of transport, such as walking and cycling should be positively encouraged and is therefore contrary to paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS25 of the Charnwood Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-2028 and TR/6 of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan 2004.

44

This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her

Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Licence No: 100023558

This copy has been produced specifically for Council purposes only. No further copies may be made.

Application No: P/13/2128/2 Location: Land off Loughborough Road, Burton on the Wolds, Leicestershire,

LE12 5AW Scale: 1:2500

Pond

MU

ND

Y C

LO

SE

LOUGHBOROUGH ROAD

CLOSE

SPRINGFIELD

BR

ICK

WO

OD

PL

45