261

Item No. 7 Application Reference Number P/14/0685/2 Application Type: Outline Planning

Permission Date Valid: 14/04/2014

Applicant: Morris Homes Ltd, Mr T Sanders, Mr G Sanders, Ms K Kettle

Proposal: Site for the erection of up to 70 dwellings, access, open space and associated works.

Location: Land off Cotes Road, Barrow Upon Soar, Leicestershire LE12 8JP

Parish: Barrow upon Soar Ward: Barrow & Sileby West

Case Officer:

Neil Thompson Tel No: 01509 634739

Description of the Application The application is for outline planning permission for up to 70 dwellings with all matters reserved for later determination except for the access. The proposed access with a minimum width of 5.5m would be directly off the roundabout at Catsick Hill. The access into the development has been designed to achieve maximum speeds of 20mph. The site is located on the north side of Barrow, just outside the boundary of the Limits to Development defined by the local plan. The site is approximately 1.2km from the centre of the village. There is a public right of way at the bottom end of the site adjacent to the railway line. An area of land lying within the flood plain and previously shown within the site boundary has been removed and is now shown outside of the red line boundary of the planning application. The nearest bus stops to the site are located on Cotes Road approximately 300 metres away and a proposed route on Willow Way. Development of the adjacent site at 125 Cotes Road has started and will provide an additional 5 dwellings within the site. There is a dwellinghouse just north of the site at 147 Cotes Road. The site slopes considerably between Catsick Hill and the railway line at the bottom of the site. The drop in levels is approximately 15 metres. Boundary hedges are intended to be retained. An open space would be created within the development towards the south west, and a linear belt provided fronting Cotes Road. A shelter belt is proposed for the northern boundary with the countryside. Design of the dwellings would be similar to existing seem close to the vicinity and be predominantly two storey in height with some 2.5 storey at key nodal points and landmarks. The application is supported by the following documents:

Flood Risk Assessment

Heritage Statement

Landscape and Visual Appraisal

Design and Access Statement

262

Arboricultural Report

Transport Statement

Planning Statement

Ecological Appraisal

Sustainability Report. Parking is proposed at 2 spaces per dwelling as an average across the site. Amendments have been submitted during the course of the application in relation to on-site attenuation of surface water to:

provide for surface water run off at no more than greenfield run off rates; and

allow for recharging of the existing wetland area at the western boundary of the site, part of the Local Wildlife site which relies on being fed from surface water run off currently.

The applicant states that the additional information also satisfies Network Rail’s concerns that there should be no greater impact on the embankment and also deals with concerns raised by consultees regarding capacity issues for sewage and effects from any over flooding from the attenuation pond. They state the principles identified within the drainage strategy are acceptable to the Environment Agency and Severn Trent Water has confirmed that the system has capacity to accept further development. The applicant has submitted a Parameters Plan to indicate the likely location of development blocks, the location of open space within the development and approximate locations of secondary roads and access drives. Development Plan Policies and other material considerations 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 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. This is all to be done in an environment of trying to achieve sustainable development in a co-ordinated, 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 for developments which respect the character of the area, nearby occupiers, and is compatible in

263

mass, scale, layout, whilst using landforms and other natural features. It should meet the needs of all groups and create safe places for people. 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/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 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. The submitted proposal has to be assessed against the above criteria. Policy TR/6-Traffic Generation from New Development. This 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/18- Parking in New Development. – this seeks to set the maximum standards by which development should provide for off street car parking dependent on floorspace or dwelling numbers. RT/12- Structural Open Space Provision in New Development. This policy 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 dictate otherwise. The Government expects the planning system to deliver homes, industry and thriving places whilst protecting and enhancing the natural environment. Planning has a key role is securing a sustainable future and should operate to encourage growth. Significant weight should be attached to the need to support economic growth. 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

264

indeterminate, unless adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or specific policies indicate development should be restricted. 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 taking into account the needs of rural areas. 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, lpa’s 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 or off site housing or an equivalent financial contribution is provided. Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Supply of housing policies cannot be considered up to date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. Environment 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. 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, minimising impacts on biodiversity and preventing new development from being at risk from pollution. Other Policies Charnwood Local Plan 2006-2028 Core Strategy The Charnwood Local Plan Core Strategy has been submitted to the Secretary of State and is currently the subject of an examination. Whilst it is not yet part of the

265

Development Plan for Charnwood it sets out the most up to date expression of Council policy, having been approved for submission by the Council following widespread consultation. Decision takers may give weight to relevant policies in the Core Strategy depending on the extent and significance of unresolved objections to a particular policy and the degree of consistency with the NPPF. Policy CS2 High Quality Design - requires developments to make a positive contribution to Charnwood, reinforcing a sense of place. It should respect the character of the area, having regard to scale, massing, landscape, layout, materials and access; provide attractive well managed public and private spaces; reduce the impact on climate change. CS 11 Landscape and Countryside - considers all types of open spaces and landscapes with a view to protecting and enhancing important natural areas and strategic gaps, and networks of green spaces for people and wildlife particularly those which are valued. Protection of tranquillity is also valued. New development should be appropriately located in terms of scale and design taking account of landscape character assessments. Areas of space between settlements will be protected as strategic gaps. Rural local need housing will be supported along with community services and facilities that meet proven local need. CS13- Biodiversity and Geodiversity - supports developments that protect these concepts or restores/recreates. The impacts of development on important sites will be taken into account. Development which results in loss of these features will only be supported where benefits clearly outweigh harm. Adequate mitigation or compensation will be required where value lost. CS15 Open Spaces Sports and Recreation - requires new development to meet the standards set out in our Open Space Strategy, retaining open space where they are of value, encouraging neighbourhood plans which provide for Local Green Space; and securing long term management and investment plans for existing and new facilities. Charnwood Service Centre Capacity Assessment - December 2011. This document is support of the evidence base for the Core Strategy looked at the broad capacity for each of the Service Centres to accommodate further development. Barrow was assessed and it was concluded that there did not appear to be such significant constraints to restrict the scope for more housing. The level of growth would need to take into account of impacts in particular on schools, transport and health care. There was a need for additional employment land for Barrow. The study notes that bus accessibility is fair for sites such as this development which relies on an hourly bus service. It notes the capacity constraints at Barrow Road bridge which has shuttle working and the interconnected issues at the main roundabout at peak am rush hour. There is rat running along Cotes Road to access Loughborough. There is no specific number identified for a level of increase possible. Each case is assessed on its merits in relation to impacts on services and infrastructure. Developer Contributions Section 106 Supplementary Planning Document (2007). This sets out the details of which types of development meet the threshold for

266

community infrastructure contributions for provision on and off site considered necessary as a result of the development. The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 sets out the Government’s policy tests on the use of planning obligations. Planning Obligations must meet all of the following tests:

a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; b) directly related to the development; and c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Planning Practice Guidance Design Sets out the importance of achieving good design and confirms that weight can be given to outstanding or innovative design, that poor design should be refused and that planning should promote local character. Barrow upon Soar Village Design Statement 2002. This document sets the context to define what is special about Barrow, its character and distinctiveness. It aims to raise the standards of design and landscaping within the village. It acknowledges diversity and there is a large range of building styles within the village. A mix of houses is encouraged including the need for affordable housing for young people wishing to remain in Barrow. Good quality new design is encouraged. The density layout and pattern of development should be appropriate in its location. Materials used in the development should be sympathetic and complement traditional local building materials. Relevant Planning History There is no relevant planning history on the site. There are some relevant decisions near the site. An appeal decision in February 2012 refused planning permission for four new houses on land outside the Limits to Development in Cotes Road (P/11/1198/2) on the grounds of the impact on the countryside. An appeal decision for an outline planning application outside of the Limits to Development of the village for up to 300 houses was approved by the Secretary of State on the 13th May 2013 APP/4230/A/12/2170252. Other nearby planning permissions which have a bearing on the development are: permission for 5 new dwellings within the grounds of 125 Cotes Road (P/12/1577/2) to the south west of the site. This site is within the Limits to Development of the village and bounds the site. The other recent permission is for a change of use to day nursery at 147 Cotes Road (P/13/1076/2) and associated car park. Responses of Consultees Barrow upon Soar Parish Council

267

Has objected to the proposal on the following grounds:

Landscape impact, loss of agricultural land, loss of some hedgerow, outside the limits to development, substantial and irrevocably detrimentally altered landscape character. The site is highly visible from outside the village.

Design and Appearance- The proposed massing would be at odds with the current character of development along Cotes Road.

Transport and traffic issues- the bus service is inadequate and would not result in sustainable movements. There are no footways between the site and the cemetery on Cotes Road. Willow Road is not a through road. The railway station is too far away at 1.5km. Accessibility is limited due to the stairs. Services are limited and do not support shift workers. The village centre is a 20 minute walk from the site. The submitted information is inadequate to assess the scheme and does not take into account cumulative impacts of development.

Lack of benefit to the community from the development. The existing Library may close. Hall Orchard is at capacity, the health centre has capacity issues.

The Statement of Community Involvement contains some misleading information. Few householders were notified. Residents’ feedback has not been considered. The applicants only met with the Planning Committee not the Parish Council. Any economic benefits are temporary. Isochrones are unrealistic for real walking times/distances.

County Highway Authority Notes that there are likely to be amendments required to the access drive into the site to provide a central splitter. The traffic generation figures are now considered to be satisfactory and consider the trip generation figures are robust, although it considers the impact on the signal crossing at Bridge Street requires mitigation works. In considering the impact of the previously permitted development at Strancliffe Hall development which was considered likely to generate similar traffic volumes the County Highway Authority considers this site should also be required to provide for a queue loop or carry out a MOVA validation of the signals to be consistent. The nearest bus stops are on Cotes Road near the junction with Blakes Close which is approximately 550m from the development. There are current plans to re-route bus service 27 along Willow Way which will reduce the distance to the nearest bus stop to 450m. To assist in providing opportunity to change travel patterns in line with policy in the NPPF, the County Highway Authority request the provision of travel packs and 6 month bus passes for future residents and recommend conditional approval including provision of the appropriate number of parking spaces for each of the dwellings. Leics County Council (Public Rights of Way) Note the presence of the public footpath I15 runs along the western boundary of the site. This should not be enclosed in any way, or re-routed or obstructed. The Rights of Way Officer supports the proposal to create a footpath link along the northern

268

boundary and would like to see the proposed footpath link extended to I15 at the western boundary. This would enable residents to link to the wider network. Leics County Council (contributions) Has identified a requirement for contributions for the following community infrastructure impacts:

Civic Amenity £1,628.

Education £247,910.82

Libraries £3,800 The civic amenity request is based on the fact that 50% of demand for this facility would go to Loughborough where there is additional capacity and 50% would go to Mountsorrel which has reached capacity. Based on 50% of £46.50 per dwelling, the contribution comes to £1,628. For educational demands, the Education Authority has requested a contribution for Primary School funding for 17 spaces. This equates to £203,263.37. This contribution would be used to accommodate the capacity issues created by the proposed development by providing additional accommodation at Hall Orchard Primary School. There is no requirement for secondary school accommodation. For post 16 education the proposal falls within Quorn Rawlings Community College. There is 2.31 deficit of pupils for this development which equates to £44,647.45. This would be used by improving, enhancing or re-modelling existing facilities at Quorn Rawlins Community College. Leicestershire Constabulary Note that the development will have an impact on the provision of the police service and that there is likely to be an effect on crime from the development. The development would put additional pressure on resources and that there would be an impact on staffing. The Constabulary is requesting monies for additional facilities for each of the sites at Loughborough and Enderby. It is also requesting money for personal equipment, vehicles, radio cover, the Police National database, control room telephony CCTV and hub access points. The Police state that most of its capital requirements incurred by growth will not be covered by existing mainstream central and local funding. This development would increase the overnight population by approximately 174 people. There would be increased phone calls, increased call outs of Officers, additional use of the database, and increased demand for deployment of mobile CCTV cameras. The NPPF supports the requirement to secure sufficient facilities and services to meet local needs at paragraph 17 and 70. Saved policies ST/1 and ST/3 and the Section 106 Contributions SPD sets out the overarching policy context. These precede the advent of the NPPF. £30,344 is requested to mitigate the impacts of the development. The Police have used forcewide floorspace to staff ratios to calculate premises requests. The breakdown for all requests is as follows:

Premises £22,213 Start up equipment £3116

269

Vehicles £1972 Radio capacity £157 PND additions £101 Call handling £215 ANPR £2055 Mobile CCTV £375 Hub equipment £140 Total £30,344

It is the view of the Leicestershire Constabulary that without these necessary contributions the development is unacceptable and contrary to the NPPF. Natural England Does not object to the proposal and considers there is no harm to the Barrow Gravel Pits SSSI. It considers that the Local Planning Authority should understand the potential impact on any local wildlife sites or nature reserves. The development maybe able to incorporate some biodiversity and landscape improvements in the detailed layout. Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) The CPRE object to the proposal on the following grounds:

Brownfield land should be developed first before greenfield sites.

The site is a part of the attractive gateway to Barrow.

The existing character is attractive open countryside. The Landscape and Visual Assessment makes no reference to the impact from wider views across the valley and from Loughborough via Cotes Road.

The site is located on the edge of the village and would not limit vehicle born transport. Distances to the train station are not sustainable. The bus services on Cotes Road are limited to one per hour.

The Transport Statement claims for peak journeys are likely to be under estimated. The NPPF requires cumulative impact to be taken into account. The highway authority should reject the scheme on the grounds of impact on the village.

Flooding in and near the village exacerbates this impact. The Environment Agency (EA) The EA has reviewed the additional submitted information supplied by the applicant and the amended drainage strategy. The details of the drainage scheme have not yet been provided as this will depend on the final scheme and number of units. The information provided has demonstrated that space is available for sustainable drainage features with an appropriate storage volume up to the 100 year plus climate change event to limit run off to existing rates. The Environment Agency recommends conditional approval. Network Rail

270

Network rail had initial concerns regarding potential effects on the embankment and the main railway line with regard to any changes to surface water flow from the site as a result of the development. It stated that surface water run off and sewage effluent should be dealt with properly and attenuation should be included. In its view, the embankment should not be put at risk from surface water. Network Rail requests a fence at the edge of the site boundary to prevent access to the area between the railway and the site. The developer should be aware of potential noise from the site due to trains and houses should be sound proofed accordingly. Following further discussions with the applicant regarding additional drainage details Network Rail have withdrawn their objection. Canal and River Trust The Trust notes that the final drainage details have yet to be decided but it is expected to discharge into an attenuated rate into the River Soar. The Trust wish to see an appropriate scheme in order to ensure that necessary attenuation is incorporated and request imposition of an appropriate condition. Severn Trent Water Severn Trent Water has no objection to the proposal and request imposition of a condition regarding disposal of surface water and foul sewage. NHS England NHS England has spoken to the local GP practice and is of the opinion that whilst this will increase the demand on services it will have to manage the impact of this development within the current and proposed infrastructure. The NHS therefore is not submitting an infrastructure request. Barrow Residents Action Group (BRAG) BRAG has objected to the proposal. The group has concerns regarding the growth of the village without appropriate infrastructure support and note that the Highway Authority had noted that the transport assessment had not taken into account committed development and the additional information has not addressed this issue. Ward Councillor Fryer and Councillor Ranson The Ward Councillors have requested the application be presented to Plans Committee as a result of over the following issues:

The proposal will result in over- dominance,

It lacks footpaths,

It results in no improvement to infrastructure of the village,

It is located outside the Limits to Development,

It represents unsustainable development,

It results in the loss of agricultural land.

271

The Council’s Housing Strategy Manager Seeks a minimum of 30% affordable housing provision on all sites for new housing which meets the thresholds described below. Current evidence suggests that 20% of affordable homes should be provided for intermediate housing and the remaining 80% is split equally for social and affordable rent. The housing should be indistinguishable from market housing and be distributed across a number of different areas. He notes the applicant’s provision for 18 affordable units. This is below the requisite provision of 30%. Given the greater demand for smaller units now further discussions will be needed at detailed stage to agree the mix on site. The Council’s Planning Liaison Officer (Open Space & Cleansing Service and Neighbourhood Service) Notes that the site is located within 480m of a play area at Brooker Close. However Cotes Road is a busy road deterring access to this facility. The development should therefore have on-site facilities with a minimum buffer zone of 20m to the nearest property. Ideally an on-site facility including seating for youth/adult should be provided 30m from any housing. Waste operatives should not walk more than 20m from the highway. Appropriate turning heads to be provided within the site. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer Has no objection to the principle of the scheme. She recommends imposition of conditions to establish any extent of ground contamination, and in the event of finding any, a suitable remediation scheme to be carried out. The site is also affected by road and rail noise. She recommends imposition of conditions to ensure provision of suitable attenuation schemes. Local Resident’s views 13 letters of objection have been received against the proposal. These can be summarised as follows:

The site is outside the Limits to Development of the village and would be at odds with the ribbon development of the village on the south west side. This results in a tapering down of the village from the centre and this development being prominent down the slope would be at odds with that concept and forming rectangular blocks. The density of the development would be too high. The site would be visually prominent from outside the area and the development seen from different locations including nearby public rights of way. The proposal would be detrimental to the landscape character of the area.

The site is too far from local village services and not accessible by bus or walking. Cotes road is busy and too dangerous for cycling now. Car speeds are high along Cotes Road, above the 30mph speed limit. People would not walk to school or the shops. The bus services are inadequate with no evening or Sunday services. There is no footpath from the cemetery to the site on Cotes Road. The train station is over a mile away. The steep slope of the site would dissuade pedestrians.

272

Flooding occurs at Slash Lane and results in significant delays in and out of Barrow due to the Bridge being used over the River Soar.

The schools are full and local health services are at capacity. The infrastructure of the village is inadequate. Barrow has had too many new housing developments recently. The development is therefore unsustainable.

The proposal would result in the loss of good quality agricultural land.

There are problems with the drainage system within the village. One letter of support has been written suggesting extra financial support for schools. Consideration of the Planning Issues It is considered that the main planning issues are as follows:

1. The principle of residential development on land outside the Limits to Development.

2. The effect on the highway network. 3. The effect on flooding and drainage. 4. The effect on trees and ecology. 5. The effect on loss of agricultural land. 6. The effect on the landscape and its character. 7. The effect on community services.

The principle of residential development on land outside the Limits to Development The site is located on land outside the Limits to Development of the settlement and is therefore contrary to the development plan policy 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. Material considerations are capable of outweighing the conflict with this development plan policy. The Council does not have a five year housing supply. Current figures put the supply at 4.42 years as of September 2014. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF indicates that where plans are out of date there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Applications should be approved unless any detrimental impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh this presumption. An assessment has to be made based on whether or not the development can be concluded to be sustainable development using the policy within the NPPF. Some of these are considered in more detail in the section on effect on community services. However it is considered useful to look at the location of the site in relation to its proximity to existing facilities and make a conclusion as to the overall sustainability of the location. The applicant has submitted a sustainability report which looks at the location of these facilities and their distance from the site. This identifies that there are a number of community facilities available at Humphrey Perkins School within 10 minutes walk

273

of the site including leisure and community activities. The Primary School at Hall Orchard is approximately 15 minutes away. The Baptist, Anglican and Methodist churches are 16 and 14 minutes away. The Bus stops on Cotes Road are approximately 4 minutes walk from the entrance to the site at 300m. Some houses towards the western end of the site would be upto 500m from the stop. This is an hourly service by Roberts bus service. The High Street shops are approximately 15 minutes walk from the site. The walk to the train station takes approximately 20 minutes at a brisk walk. There are proposals already agreed to provide a footpath between the cemetery and the edge of the site by the adjacent landowner through another housing scheme. The applicants propose to extend this into the site. It must be acknowledged that this site is less sustainable in terms of its location to the village centre than other sites recently granted planning permission for housing development and certainly very similar to distances and times from the appeal site at Melton Road which the Planning Inspector considered a reasonable walking time to the village centre. Whilst that site was nearer to the Railway Station, it was further away from Humphrey Perkins School and some of the leisure and community facilities than the application site. Albeit at walking times of between 20 -25 minutes, the presence of the Railway Station must at least be considered to add to the options for commuters to travel out of the village other than by car, either through a longer walk, or a part cycle, train journey to Loughborough, Leicester, Derby or Nottingham. This additional sustainable option is not available for some of the Service Centres within the Borough. The available bus service is not as good as other more central locations in Barrow which benefit from a half hourly service and does not operate in the evenings and at weekends, but nevertheless it is not considered unreasonable or an unrealistic option for daytime commuting journeys. The Cotes Road development would therefore be less sustainable in terms of sustainable transport options than similar sites in other sustainable service centres and the site at Melton Road. Nevertheless, a judgement needs to be made about whether this site would provide for opportunities to travel to these community facilities by modes other than the private motor car. It is concluded that these distances to facilities, when taken in the round, do provide opportunity for the use of non–car-borne transport, particularly for commuting journeys to main employment locations, and that although distances to the village centre are perhaps towards the upper limit of a reasonable walking time distance to the shops and the health centre, they are nevertheless not unreasonable for most able bodied persons. Whilst the bus service at this edge of the village cannot be described as good, it would still allow for movement for residents during normal daytime and commuting hours reducing the possibility of congestion on the road network. Evening journeys more than 1.2km are likely to be carried out in a car. In conclusion, whilst the proposed development site is less sustainable than other edge of settlement sites, it cannot overall be concluded to be unsustainable development, due to the location of the site to a fair weekday bus service, some local facilities, and the majority of village centre services. The proposal is therefore considered, on balance, to comply with the requirements of the NPPF and policy TR/6 of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan. The effect on the highway network.

274

Recent developments within the village have assessed the overall impacts of development on Barrow, in particular on junctions and the bridge which accommodate significant amounts of traffic. There were initial concerns raised regarding the impacts of cumulative development on Barrow and these sensitive junctions. The Planning Inspector at the Melton Road appeal in 2013 identified that the impacts of flooding events on traffic flow were intermittent and concluded that this wider issue would need to be addressed through other means and that with the proposed improvements from that development; the overall scenario would not result in a wholly unacceptable situation. He concluded that there would not be a situation which would result in a severe impact although there maybe some adverse impacts. For this proposal, the highway authority has assessed the amended information submitted with the proposal which looks at where traffic would flow from the development in more detail. This states that there would be an additional 21 two way trips over Barrow Bridge per hour to and from the development, 9 east bound movements and 12 westward movements on Bridge Street. The applicant concludes that this would not be a severe impact on the highway network in the meaning of paragraph 32 of the NPPF. The Highway Authority agrees that the additional impact of this development is not sufficient to warrant a recommendation for refusal. There would be inadequate evidence to say that this development would result in a severe impact on traffic at Barrow Bridge, albeit there are likely to be some minor adverse impacts, such as a minor increase in congestion and waiting times at the traffic lights. The Highway Authority has requested imposition of a condition in relation to a queue loop detector, or a MOVA validation, if the queue loop detector has already been implemented by the developers of Strancliffe Hall. There may be some changes required to the detailed design of the access into the site. However it is concluded that an acceptable access can be achieved to necessary design standards to satisfy the highway authority and to adopt the access road. On this basis, a condition is suggested to be imposed to address this. In conclusion, it is considered that the minor adverse impacts from the increase in traffic at the sensitive junctions which currently result in frustration for residents of the village are not sufficient in itself to warrant refusal of the proposal or result in serious harm to highway safety or have a severe impact as referenced in paragraph 32 of the NPPF. On that basis, it is recommended that highway conditions be imposed as requested by the Highways Officer. The effect on flooding and drainage The applicants have amended the drainage strategy to provide for adequate on-site attenuation which limits run off to Greenfield rates as required by the Environment Agency and as identified on the Preliminary Drainage Strategy drawing. Run off into the River Soar is no longer necessary and the comments of the Canal and River Trust have been dealt with. This amendment satisfies the requirements for continued hydration of the Local Wildlife Site and also ensures that there is no greater impact upon Network Rail’s infrastructure. Additional assurances have been given with regard to the capacity of the attenuation pond, and the capacity of the sewerage network. Severn Trent Water has not objected to the proposal and considers that a detailed scheme can be provided to meet their needs. Conditions are recommended

275

to be imposed to deal with surface and foul sewage disposal. The conclusions are that the proposal would not result in harm to the water environment. Network Rail has withdrawn its objection, and therefore it is considered that the scheme is acceptable on these grounds subject to the imposition of the appropriate conditions requested by The Environment Agency. The effect on ecology and biodiversity. The amendments to the drainage strategy have resulted in continued hydration of the Local Wildlife Site at Greenfield run off rates. The proposal is now considered acceptable. There are opportunities to create additional landscape planting with a shelter belt of trees on the northern boundary of the site with the countryside, and a set back of houses from Cotes Road. Hedges and trees around the boundaries of the site can be protected through imposition of conditions at outline stage. A landscape management plan can deal with the long term intentions of managing the open space for the benefit of the environment and future residents. The ecology report identified that there would be no detrimental effects on Great Crested Newts. A construction method statement can detail protection measures for the Local Wildlife Site. The reserved matters details should broadly comply with the Parameters Masterplan to protect boundaries and provide adequate open space within the site and buffers to the site boundaries. Some silver birch within the site would need to be removed. These are relatively small and not significant in terms of their visual amenity value. New planting within the landscape scheme could replace these. A condition can be imposed in relation to the potential contamination of the site as requested by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer. This would provide any remediation required. The proposal would not result in any harm to biodiversity or ecological interests and comply with emerging policy CS13 of the Charnwood Local Plan 2006-2028, and the NPPF. The effect on loss of agricultural land. The proposal would involve the loss of approximately 2.8ha of agricultural land. Paragraph 112 of the NPPF requires an assessment of whether loss of significant amounts of agricultural land is necessary and that poorer quality areas are looked at first. The agricultural land has not been further defined between Best and Most Versatile or less than Best and Most Versatile. There is also no accurate, specific definition of what significant is within the NPPF in the context of paragraph 112. However, it is considered that this level of loss would be considered likely to fall below this threshold even if most of this land was of BMV quality. It is acknowledged, at a more strategic level, that Charnwood will not be able to meet its future housing needs on brownfield land alone, and there is little land below grade 3 within the Borough that would be appropriate to build on, which also satisfies other criteria with regard to being within a sustainable location close to the edge of a sustainable settlement. On that basis, although the proposal would result in the loss of some

276

potentially good quality agricultural land, it is concluded that this is not sufficient reason in itself to refuse the proposal. The effect on the landscape and its character. In terms of the location of this development on the edge of the settlement, it is acknowledged that the development on the south western side of Cotes Road is one of ribbon development on narrow plots generally close to the main road but with frontages set back from the road and having generous gardens. There are several small developments off private drives in infill plots resulting in no regular defining line between the settlement and the countryside. The village has an existing strong defensible Limit to Development boundary at the edge of the curtilage of 125 Cotes Road. Whilst the amount of dwellings proposed would be much denser than the adjacent development to the south east which has much lower densities with larger houses, it should also be acknowledged that the proposed development as shown on the illustrative plans does not project down the slope further than the adjacent stable block behind 125 Cotes Road, and at it’s northern boundary would be approximately in line with the existing development curtilage at 149 and 151 Cotes Road. It is considered that applications for the detailed design should follow generally the principles established within the Parameters Masterplan (rev C) including the extent of the south western boundary. The proposed density would be up to approximately 32 dwellings per hectare which is higher than the surrounding density, but which aims to make the use of the land more efficient. The main issue is what effect this would have on the surrounding character and appearance within the landscape. In terms of views from Cotes Road, the illustrative Parameters Plan shows that the frontage development would be set back from the road and would therefore not appear out of character with the adjacent residential development either side. Due to the topography of the area and intervening vegetation, the site is not easily visible from close to the site when travelling along Cotes Road. Travellers get a sense of entering the outskirts of the settlement when approaching the roundabout. Although there are views of the Charnwood Forest escarpment very close to the site from the roundabout, these are fleeting. There are views of the wider Soar Valley with significant tree cover along the transport corridor in the Soar Valley when travelling down Willow Road, with good views of the escarpment of part of the Charnwood Forest above... It would be correct to say that much of this open view would be lost due to the presence of residential development on the site, albeit set back from the road frontage and therefore set slightly lower down the slope. Therefore there would be minor to moderate detrimental visual impacts here. Further to the north on Cotes Road, the site is very difficult to see due to changes in topography and intervening vegetation and has a negligible impact. Views of the development would be prominent when approaching the settlement on the public right of way I15 at the bottom end of the site. The site would be seen in the context of approaching the settlement, and in the context of views of 149 and 151 Cotes Road, and the development within the curtilage of 125 Cotes Road. The development would project further forward towards the public right of way than the adjacent development at 125 Cotes Road and therefore be more prominent and be likely to have a moderate detrimental impact on users of the footpath but could be

277

mitigated to a certain extent through landscape planting within the proposed open space area. It is therefore not considered that this would result in serious harm to the amenity of users of this right of way, or significantly change the overall character of the landscape in this area. It would be seen as an edge of village, new development, albeit it at a higher density than that found in the area of ribbon development on the same side of Cotes Road. The density is likely to be slightly higher than that found with the recent Miller and David Wilson developments on the eastern side of Cotes Road. The exact details of the number of units have not yet been finalised and the application is for up to 70 dwellings. The Reserved Matters application may provide a reduced amount when the layout is further iterated. In an appeal decision on a site at Bramcote Road in Loughborough, which lies close to the north of the application site, the Inspector considered the impact of a number of policies including Policy ST/2 Limits to Development, CT/1 General Principles for Areas of Countryside, Green Wedge and Local Separation and Policy CT/7 Areas of Particularly Attractive Countryside. He commented that they have a joint purpose of serving to define the limits of development but also seeking to define areas of countryside which they seek to safeguard. In considering that proposal the Inspector concluded that whilst the broad principle of safeguarding the character of the landscape may accord with The Framework (in safeguarding the countryside for its own sake), policies CT/1, CT/7 and ST/2 were acting as an additional policy constraint on housing supply. CT/1 acts as a constraint to the supply of housing. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy CT/1 and ST/2 of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan 2004. However, with regards to paragraph 49 of the Framework which requires that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development; the Inspector concluded that these policies cannot be considered up-to-date. In conclusion, the proposal is outside the limits to development of the settlement but needs to be assessed on the basis of the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the development and the harm the development would be likely to cause. The proposal would result in the loss of some long distant views on the edge of the settlement particularly for travellers using Willow Road when approaching the roundabout. These are considered to have a moderately detrimental impact upon users. However these have to be balanced against the benefits of the scheme in meeting housing need. The density of the development is likely to be higher than that seen along the western side of Cotes Road, however it is concluded that this would not result in significant and demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the development, sufficient to outweigh the benefits of the provision of the additional housing supply, taking into account the more efficient use of the land from this development and its generally sustainable location on the edge of the existing settlement and situated between two residential properties. The effect on community services. The development would result in effects on community services. In the context of the above comments regarding the effect on public services within the village and whether these are at such a level in which additional development within the

278

settlements puts too great a strain on those services each will be assessed in due course. Of particular concern to residents is the effect on educational services and health services. With regard to health services, NHS England considers that whilst there would be some additional pressure on existing facilities, no additional contributions are necessary. There has been some expansion of this facility as a result of previous development in the village. Additional contributions were also secured from the Melton Road development. It is therefore not considered necessary to seek contributions from this development based on the effects of this development. With regard to educational services, the Education Authority has identified potential deficiencies as a result of the development and requests monies for both Primary education facilities at Hall Orchard and post 16 facilities at Quorn Rawlins for re-modelling, extension or improvement of the physical buildings. It is concluded that these requests are necessary, reasonable and comply with the requirements of the CIL Regulations 2010 as amended as they would aim to meet deficiencies created by this development. Requests are also made by Leicestershire County Council for additional items for Barrow library, based on additional demand created by residents of the development totalling £3,800. It is considered that these additional items for the library are necessary and related to the development needs of the residents and comply with the CIL Regulations 2010. Additional requests are made to provide improvements to facilities at Mountsorrel civic amenity site on the basis that 50% of residents are likely to use this facility and 50% would use the Loughborough site. It is considered that this request is reasonable and would be used to provide for deficiencies as a result of the development. With regard to affordable housing to be provided, the Council Housing Strategy Officer considers the development should provide a contribution towards Borough need. The current requirement based on the evidence base is for 30% provision within this settlement. 20% of these affordable units should be for intermediate housing and the remaining 80% being split generally equally between social and affordable rent. The applicant has agreed to provide for 30% of the dwellings provided at the site. They are, however, only prepared at this stage to agree that the 80% being rented with no specific definition of the split between social and affordable rent. With regard to policing requests, it is acknowledged that contributions to Policing is capable of meeting the tests set out in the CIL Regulations. The Council has agreed in appropriate circumstances to accept requests for contributions for police infrastructure requests on some sites. Leicestershire Police has submitted several appeal decisions where Police contributions have been accepted. There are also circumstances where Police contributions have not been accepted by Planning Inspectors. Each case should be taken on its merits and the requests assessed against the CIL Regulations to see if they comply. The Council’s Section 106 Developer Contributions SPD identifies that it would be appropriate to secure planning obligations in relation to the need for additional premises if these are

279

properly detailed and directly related to the development. Revenue items were not considered appropriate. It is also acknowledged that the NPPF at paragraph 70 identifies that planning decisions should plan for community facilities and services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments. Paragraphs 58 and 69 of the NPPF state that decisions should aim to ensure that developments create safe and accessible environments where crime or disorder and the fear of crime do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion. Many of these appeal cases have been where Unilateral Undertakings were put forward and the Inspector and Secretary of State has accepted their inclusion. In assessing the requests for contributions from Leicestershire Police, it must be assessed whether the proposals are properly detailed and linked directly to the development. The largest element of the request for this site is a premises contribution. This is not detailed in terms of identifying where the money would be spent but is just stated as being either at Syston or Loughborough. It is assessed using generic force based figures on overall likely floorspace. Loughborough Police Station has recently been demolished and a new one is currently being erected. The Police confirm that it will only cope with existing needs and demands and does not take account of growth in the Force Area despite an assumed life of the building of around 30 years. Whilst this may seem surprising, the Police confirm that any future growth requirements from development need to be secured through funding secured in S106 legal agreements. However, Police Services are constrained in their capital spending and it maybe unrealistic to expect all new policing requirements to be provided for by these funding streams. On balance, it is considered reasonable to conclude that the Police request for the premises contribution of £22,213 is justified and meets the test set out in the CIL Regulations 2010 as amended in principle. With regard to the request for start up equipment it is considered that these are capable of being compliant with the CIL Regulations potentially up to a maximum of £3,116. However, the detail of this package will need to be subject to further negotiation to address whether each element of the start-up costs are compliant with the CIL Regulations. On this occasion, it is therefore considered reasonable to conclude that the Police request for a premises and the related start up equipment are justified in principle. However, the detail of this package will need to be subject to further negotiation to address whether each element of the start-up costs are compliant with the CIL Regulations. It is considered reasonable to expect the development to provide that funding subject to detailed demonstration of predominantly being used to meet the need of the development. The development would be located at least 2 miles from the centre of Loughborough and the Police Station and it is reasonable to expect the development to be serviced by Police vehicles. However, the request for £1,972 to buy new vehicles are not adequately or directly linked to the development, and are just as likely to serve any

280

other part of the area. It is not considered that this request would comply with the CIL Regulations 2010. The Police consider that additional systems and hardware will be needed to carry radio calls from the development at a cost of £157. Furthermore, the Police confirm that the current data base system has reached capacity and request £101 for additional servers. Neither of these contributions would be sufficiently or directly linked to the demand created by the development and they are not therefore considered to be CIL compliant. The Police also state that the development would result in an increase in calls to the control room at Enderby. They consider that additional telephony, workstations and monitoring screens maybe required to deal with requests created by residents and businesses within the development and request £215 for this equipment. However, insufficient details have been provided to understand how this is directly related to the needs of the development. It is not considered that the request is CIL compliant. The Police are deploying fixed ANPR cameras on main road networks and close to or in settlements. There are 11 within the District. They have requested money to contribute towards an additional camera on a main access road serving the settlement at a cost of £2,055. This is approximately 26% of the cost of a camera. The Police submit that their ability to monitor crime related vehicle movements in the locality would be affected if this equipment was not provided. An appropriate increase in this infrastructure, and equipment close to the site could be justified by the development. However, it is not clear how this scale of contribution has been reached. It is not clear whether this site alone would then result in provision of this camera, or how the additional 74% of the camera would be provided. As such it is concluded that the development would not be compliant with the CIL Regulations 2010. The Police have also requested a contribution of £375 for a mobile CCTV unit. If accepted, this contribution would double the provision for the whole of Charnwood. Whilst this mobile camera would be a useful addition to CCTV provision in the Borough it would not necessarily be used wholly for the development. The request does not appear to be related in scale or kind, given that it is the cost of a whole camera and only the second in the Borough. It is therefore considered that this would not comply with the CIL Regulations. A request has been made for £2 per dwelling to equip an access hub for the development, making a total request for £140. The development in itself would not be large enough to create a demand for a hub and no location has been identified to accommodate it. It would need to link in with other settlements to create the 4,000 dwellings needed to provide a hub. It is not clear whether this type of provision would be required near the development, or whether it would be any more beneficial to residents than being serviced by the existing station at Loughborough. The principal of hubs is supported given their contribution to sustainable communities and were the development large enough to generate the need for a hub, and had a location been identified, then a contribution maybe considered reasonable if it was evidenced appropriately. However in this instance, it is not considered that this has been carried

281

out and the contribution request is not justified or compliant with the CIL Regulations 2010. It is concluded that there would have no significant detrimental impacts from the development were those contributions requested, and not considered justified, are not secured. The proposal would thereby not be contrary to paragraphs 17, 69 and 70 of the NPPF. In relation to open space requirements, it is concluded that children’s play facilities should be provided on the development site at the appropriate rate and with the appropriate level of facilities. Provision should be made for some youth shelter and seating. The majority of youth/adult provision has been agreed with the applicant to be provided off site for benefit of improvements to facilities within 2km of the site to help meet existing deficiencies within the Borough, using the contribution figure quoted within the Council’s Section 106 Supplementary Planning Document, totalling up to £49,420. Conclusions 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 Framework, against the impact of new housing development on the edge of Barrow including in particular the impact on the landscape, road network and safety and the sustainability of the site. At the current time there is still, based on recent analysis, an identifiable shortage of housing supply measured against the 5 year + 20% land supply required by the Framework. In these circumstances recent appeal decisions, including that at Bramcote Road, Loughborough, reveal the considerable weight that appeal inspectors are placing on the need for a supply of housing land, set against landscape and other considerations. The test from the NPPF is therefore whether any adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, including the contribution to the supply of housing in a generally sustainable location. In this case, in applying the overall planning balance, the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area and the wider landscape is not considered to be sufficient to outweigh the need for the additional housing and that any adverse impacts resulting from the development can be satisfactorily mitigated by means of appropriate planning conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement. It is therefore recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions and the satisfactory conclusion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure infrastructure contributions. RECOMMENDATION A That authority is given to the Head of Planning and Regeneration and the Head of Strategic Support to enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure infrastructure improvements, on terms to be finalised by them, as set out below to include the original infrastructure provisions as amended by the following:-

282

Travel Packs; to inform new residents from first occupation of the sustainable travel choices 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); 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).

The provision of affordable housing at 30% of the total number of houses to be provided at the site; 20% of these shall be for intermediate housing and the remaining 80% should generally be split equally between social rent and affordable rent.

Off site contributions of £49,420 for youth/adult facilities to be spent on recreational improvements within 2km of the site for the benefit of residents of the development to meet existing deficiencies minus the amount required to provide for a teenage shelter and seating on the development site.

Provisions of contributions for improvements to Hall Orchard Primarily School totalling up to £203,263.37 for extension, remodelling or improvement of facilities at the school to accommodate deficiencies created by the development.

Provision of contributions for improvements to Quorn Rawlins Community College totalling up to £44,647.45 for remodelling, extension or improvement to facilities to accommodate deficiencies created by the development.

Provision of contributions for improvements to the Mountsorrel civic amenity site totalling up to £1628.

Provision for improvements to Barrow library for additional items totalling upto £3,800.

Provision for police premises improvements to Syston or Loughborough Police Station up to a maximum of £22,213. Provision for start up costs for equipment for Police staff up to a maximum of £3,116 (subject to detailed demonstration of predominantly being used to meet the need of the development).

The above figures should be amended proportionately in the event the reserved matters application provides less than 70 dwellings.

RECOMMENDATION B That subject to the completion of the agreement in A above, planning permission be granted subject to the imposition of the following conditions;

RECOMMENDATION:- Grant Conditionally

1 Application for approval of reserved matters shall be made within two years of

283

the date of this permission and the development shall be begun not later than one year from the final approval of the last of the reserved matters. REASON: To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to ensure the swift delivery of housing.

2 The development shall not commence until approval of the following reserved

matters has been obtained in writing from the local planning authority:- a. layout, b. scale, c. appearance, and d landscaping. REASON: To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

3 The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than two years from the

date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. REASON: This application is proposed to help meet the shortage of much needed housing within the Borough.

4 No development shall commence until both a Master Plan in general conformity

with the submitted Parameters Masterplan rev B, the Preliminary Drainage Strategy rev C, and a Design Code for the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Both shall substantially accord with the submitted Design and Access Statement April 2014. Any amendment to either shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Design Code shall address the following: i) Architectural and sustainable construction principles ii) Character areas iii) Lifetime home standards iv) Cycling provision including pedestrian and cycle links to adjoining land and a pedestrian link to the definitive footpath I15. v) Street types and street materials vi) Building heights (which should be limited to a maximum height of 2 1/2 storeys, being located on the main street only, and two storeys for the remaining parts of the development vii) Design of the site to accord with Secure by Design principles. viii) adequate provision of structural buffer landscaping on the northern boundary to be a minimum of 10m from the centre of the hedge line ix) external lighting scheme to minimise impact on the local bat population REASON: To ensure a high quality of development which respects the existing site constraints and limits the impact of the proposal on the countryside.

5 Before first occupation of any dwelling, the developer shall either provide a

queue loop detector at the South Street/Bridge Street roundabout, or if already provided by another developer, the developer will need to carry out a MOVA validation of the signals and any necessary alterations of the signals to cater for

284

the development traffic. REASON: To reduce the impact of the traffic generated by the development at the South Street/Bridge Street junction and along Bridge Street itself.

6 No development, including site works, shall take place until a scheme for the

treatment of the application site boundaries has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. REASON: To ensure the satisfactory, overall appearance of the completed development.

7 No use or occupation of the development hereby permitted shall take place until

the scheme for boundary treatment, agreed under the terms of the above condition, has been fully completed. REASON: To ensure the satisfactory, overall appearance of the completed development.

8 No works shall begin on the site until such time as a detailed site survey to

establish the degree of contamination of the site (including the presence, if any, of land-fill gas), together with a scheme of necessary remedial measures to render the site suitable and safe for development and to protect the locality, have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. REASON: To make sure that the site, when developed is free from contamination, in the interests of public health and safety.

9 No part of the development shall be brought into use until such time as the

agreed remedial works (including any further measures for monitoring the level of contamination and/or the effectiveness of the remedial works), have been implemented in accordance with a timetable of events, previously agreed in writing by the local planning authority. REASON: To make sure that the site, when developed is free from contamination, in the interests of public health and safety.

10 A scheme for protecting the proposed residential development from

transportation noise shall be submitted for approval by the local planning authority. The glazing and ventilation scheme shall be designed to achieve an internal ambient noise level of 35 dB LAeq daytime, 30 dB LAeq night-time and 45dB LA max, night-time in all residential bedrooms and 40 dB LAeq daytime in all other habitable rooms. External amenity areas shall be provided with attenuation for noise in accordance with the above scheme. All works that form part of the approved scheme shall be completed before any part of the development is occupied. REASON: To protect the residential amenity of future occupants of the development.

285

11 No development, including site works, shall begin until a landscaping scheme, to include those details specified below, has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority: i) the treatment proposed for all ground surfaces, including hard areas; ii) full details of tree planting; iii) planting schedules, noting the species, sizes, numbers and densities of plants; iv) finished levels or contours; v) any structures to be erected or constructed; vi) functional services above and below ground; and vii) all existing trees, hedges and other landscape features, indicating clearly those to be removed. REASON: To make sure that a satisfactory landscaping scheme for the development is agreed.

12 The landscaping scheme shall be fully completed, in accordance with the details

agreed under the terms of the above condition, in the first planting and seeding seasons following the first occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with a programme previously agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Any trees or plants removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased, within 5 years of planting shall be replaced in the following planting season by trees or plants of a size and species similar to those originally required to be planted. REASON: To make sure that the appearance of the completed development is satisfactory and to help assimilate the development into its surroundings.

13 No dwelling shall be occupied until a landscape management plan, including

long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than domestic gardens, has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The agreed landscape management plan shall then be fully implemented. REASON: To make sure that the appearance of the completed development is satisfactory and to help assimilate the development into its surroundings.

14 No materials shall be placed on the site until such time as samples of the facing

bricks and any other materials to be used on the external walls and of the roofing slates, tiles and any other materials have been submitted for the agreement of the local planning authority. Only materials agreed in writing by the local planning authority shall be used in carrying out the development. REASON: To make sure that the appearance of the completed development is satisfactory.

15 No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until such

time as a surface water drainage scheme has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

286

The scheme shall include the utilisation of holding sustainable drainage techniques with the incorporation of two treatment trains to help improve water quality; the limitation of surface water run-off to equivalent greenfield rates; the ability to accommodate surface water run-off on-site up to the critical 1 in 100 year event plus an appropriate allowance for climate change, based upon the submission of drainage calculations; and the responsibility for the future maintenance of drainage features. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. REASON: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of and disposal of surface water from the site and to ensure the water quality is suitable for discharge to a local wildlife site.

16 Finished floor levels should be set at least 150mm above existing ground levels.

REASON: To protect the development from overland flow.

17 The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a

scheme to treat and remove suspended solids from surface water run-off during construction works has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. REASON: To minimise the risk of pollution of the water environment.

18 The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a

scheme to dispose of foul drainage has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme should take into account the following:

The increased amount of waste water and sewage effluent produced by the new development will need to be dealt with to ensure that there is no deterioration in the quality of the watercourses receiving the extra volume of treated effluent. Therefore the sewerage undertaker, Severn Trent Water Limited, will need to confirm that Barrow & Quorn Sewage Treatment Works has enough capacity in the permitted dry weather flow to accept the foul flow from the proposed development. NB: If there is insufficient headroom then the consent to discharge for the sewage treatment works will have to be reviewed to accommodate the additional flow. If river modelling shows that the consent limits need to be tightened beyond Best Available Technology in order to comply with no deterioration in the watercourse under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) then the volume of foul flow arriving at the sewage treatment works may be limited.

It should be demonstrated by Severn Trent Water Limited that the increase in foul waste water entering the sewerage system will not cause any

287

deterioration in the operation of any combined sewer overflows on the system either upstream or downstream of the development. There must be no increase in the spill frequency or volume of the combined sewer overflows on the sewerage network and the additional flow must not create the need for any new combined sewer overflows. If the sewerage network does not have the capacity to accept the flows then development must be phased in with the upgrading of the network and foul flows can only enter the system once the upgrading work is complete. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

REASON: To protect the water environment. The Humber river basin management plan requires the restoration and enhancement of water bodies to prevent deterioration and promote recovery of water bodies. Without this condition, the impact could cause deterioration of a quality element to a lower status class and/or prevent the recovery of and/or cause deterioration of a River Soar water body because it would result in the release of priority hazardous substances (ammonia).

19 The details to be submitted in accordance with condition No. 2 shall include open

space/children's play area provision at a rate of 200 square metres per 10 dwellings of which 75 square metres per 10 dwellings must include play equipment. The LEAP shall be at least 20m from the nearest dwelling. The details shall also include provision for youth seating. REASON: To make sure that adequate open space is provided within the development and in accordance with the requirements of Policy RT/3 of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan (Jan 2004).

20 The details to be submitted in accordance with condition No. 2 shall include open

space provision at a rate of 38 square metres per 10 dwellings suitable for general amenity use. REASON: To make sure that adequate open space is provided within the development and in accordance with the requirements of Policy RT/5 of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan (Jan 2004).

21 The details to be submitted in accordance with the Condition No 2 above in

respect of public open spaces/children's play areas/tree planting areas and other incidental open spaces to be included in the proposed development, shall contain proposals for the future management of these areas. REASON: To ensure the satisfactory provision and maintenance of such areas, in the interests of general amenity.

22 No work shall commence on the site until proposals for the future management

of public open space, children's play areas and tree planting areas and other incidental open spaces have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. REASON: To ensure the satisfactory maintenance of such areas in the interests of general amenity.

288

23 The hedges located on the northern and southern boundaries of the application

site shall be retained and maintained at a height no lower than 3 metres. Any part of the hedge removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased shall be replaced, with hedge plants of such size and species as previously agreed in writing by the local planning authority, within one year of the date of any such loss. REASON: The hedge is an important feature in the area and its retention is necessary to help screen the new development and prevent undue overlooking of adjoining dwellings.

24 No development, including site works, shall begin until the hedges located on the

northern and southern boundaries of the application site has been protected, in a manner previously agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The hedge shall be protected in the agreed manner for the duration of building operations on the application site. REASON: The hedges are an important feature in the area and this condition is imposed to make sure that it is properly protected while building works take place on the site.

25 The existing trees as indicated to be retained on the submitted plan 6043-A-04

within the Arboricultural Assessment, shall not be felled, lopped, topped or uprooted without the previous written agreement of the local planning authority. Any trees removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased shall be replaced with trees of such size and species as previously agreed in writing by the local planning authority within one year of the date of any such loss, for a period of 5 years from the date development begins. REASON: The trees are important features in the area and this condition is imposed to make sure that they are properly protected while building works take place on the site.

26 No development, including site works, shall begin until each tree shown to be

retained on the approved plan has been protected, in a manner which shall have first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Each tree shall be protected in the agreed manner for the duration of building operations on the application site. Within the areas agreed to be protected, the existing ground level shall be neither raised nor lowered, and no materials or temporary building or surplus soil of any kind shall be placed or stored thereon. If any trenches for services are required in the protected areas, they shall be excavated and back-filled by hand and any tree roots encountered with a diameter of 5cm or more shall be left unsevered. REASON: The trees are important features in the area and this condition is imposed to make sure that they are properly protected while building works take place on the site.

27 Notwithstanding the details submitted, the proposed access junction serving the

289

site from Cotes Road, shall be designed and constructed in accordance with highway authority standards. All details of the proposed works shall have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in consultation with the highway authority before development commences. REASON: To ensure that the details of the access into the site is designed appropriately, in the interests of highway safety.

28 Before first use of the development hereby permitted, a footway shall be

completed to the satisfaction of the highway authority from existing footways on Cotes Road to the east of the site to the point of the new access to the development shown off the proposed roundabout junction with Willow Road. REASON: The highway fronting the site has no separate facility for pedestrians and the proposal would lead to an increase in pedestrian movement along the highway. The footway is therefore required for the safety of pedestrians.

29 No development shall commence on the site until such time as a construction

traffic/site traffic management plan, including wheel cleansing facilities and vehicle parking facilities, and a timetable for their provision, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable. REASON: To reduce the possibility of deleterious material (mud, stones etc) being deposited in the highway and becoming a hazard to road users, and to ensure that construction traffic/site traffic associated with the development does not lead to on-street parking problems in the area.

30 Before the development commences, details of the routing of construction traffic

shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in consultation with the highway authority. During the period of construction, all traffic to and from the site shall use the agreed route at all times. REASON: To ensure that construction traffic associated with the development does not use unsatisfactory roads to and from the site.

31 Before first occupation of any dwelling, car parking shall be provided, hard

surfaced and made available for use to serve that dwelling on the basis of 2 spaces for a dwelling with up to three bedrooms and 3 spaces for a dwelling with four or more bedrooms. The parking spaces so provided shall thereafter be permanently so maintained. REASON: To ensure that adequate off-street parking provision is made to reduce the possibilities of the proposed development leading to on-street parking problems in the area.

290

32 No part of the development as approved shall be brought into use until details of a Residential Travel Plan has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The Plan shall address the travel implications of the use of the whole site as if the development approved were to have been fully completed and occupied. The Plan shall specify facilities and measures with measurable output and outcome targets designed to:

Reduce single occupancy vehicle use, reduce vehicular travel at peak traffic times and reduce vehicle emissions for journeys made for all purposes to and from the developed site,

Increase the choice and use of alternative transport modes for any journeys likely to be made to and from the developed site and, in particular, to secure increases in the proportion of travel by car sharing, public transport use, cycling and walking modes and the use of IT substitutes for real travel,

Manage the demand by all users of the developed site for vehicle parking within and in the vicinity of the developed site.

The Plan shall also specify:

The on-site Plan implementation and management responsibilities, including the identification of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator,

The arrangements for regular travel behaviour and impact monitoring surveys and Plan reviews covering a period extending to at least one year after the last unit of development is occupied or a minimum of 5 years from first occupation, whichever will be the longer.

The timescales or phasing programmes for delivery of the Plan’s proposals and for the achievement of the specified output and outcome targets, and

Additional facilities and measures to be implemented if monitoring shows that the Plan’s targets are not likely to be met, together with clear trigger dates, events or threshold levels for invoking these measures.

The Plan, once agreed, shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details, and thereafter, the implementation of the proposals and the achievement of targets of the Plan shall be subject to regular monitoring and review reports to the LPA and, if invoked, to the implementation of the specified additional measures. REASON: To ensure that adequate steps are taken to achieve and maintain reduced travel, traffic and parking impacts and to provide and promote use of more sustainable transport choices to and from the site in order to relieve traffic and parking congestion, promote safety, improve air quality or increase accessibility in accord with Section 4: ‘Promoting Sustainable Transport’ of the NPPF 2012.

33 No development shall commence until a scheme is submitted in writing to the

local planning authority to install bird and bat boxes within the site. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details. REASON: In the interests of the biodiversity of the site and surrounding area.

34 The details of the layout shall ensure that waste operatives do not have to walk

291

more than 20m from the public highway to collect refuse. REASON: To ensure the satisfactory design and layout of the development.

The following advice notes will be attached to a decision

1 The Local Planning Authority acted pro-actively through positive engagement with the applicant during the determination process. This led to improvements to the scheme to secure a sustainable form of development in line with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (as amended).

2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES RELEVANT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT -

Policies ST/1, ST/2, ST/3, EV/1, EV/20, EV/43, H/16, CT/1, TR/6, TR/18, RT/3, RT/4, RT/5 and RT/12 of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan (adopted 12th January 2004) have been taken into account in the determination of this application. The proposed development complies with the requirements of these saved Local Plan policies and policies CS2, CS11, and CS13 of the Charnwood Local Plan 2006-2028 and the relevant sections of the National Planning Policy Framework and there are no other material considerations which are of significant weight in reaching a decision on this application.

3 Planning permission has been granted for this