w3.blaby.gov.uk · Web viewContact Details: Council Offices. Tel 0116 250 3078 RECOMMENDATION: THAT...

Blaby District CouncilPlanning Committee

Date of Meeting 25 June 2020Title of Report Applications for DeterminationReport Author Development Services Manager

1. What is this report about?

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

2. Recommendation

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

3. Matters to consider

3.1 To avoid unnecessary delay in the processing of planning applications, the recommendations included in this list must often be prepared in advance of the closing date for the receipt of representations. This list was prepared on 16 June 2020 and information of representations received will be updated at your meeting. This updating will also cover any other information which may come to hand in the intervening period. Closing dates are given where they fall on or after the day of preparation of the list.

3.2 Application No. Page No.

Address Recommendation

19/0511/FUL

19/0765/FUL

9

31

Glebe Garden Centre, Foston Road, Countesthorpe

Clubhouse, Warwick Road, Whetstone

APPROVE

APPROVE

19/1132/FUL 41 Land Rear Of 7, Cranmer Close

APPROVE

20/0178/FUL 58 Countesthorpe Leysland College, Winchester Road, Countesthorpe

APPROVE

3.3 Appropriate Consultations

Details of organisations / persons consulted in relation to the applications are included in the reports for each individual application. Members will be aware that full copies of correspondence received are available to view on the respective planning file and through the planning portal https://w3.blaby.gov.uk/online-applications/

3.4 Resource Implications

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

4. Other options considered

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

5. Background paper(s)

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

6. Report author’s contact detailsKristy Ingles Development Services [email protected] 0116 272 7705

mailto:[email protected]

19/0511/FUL Registered Date Messrs D & N. D. Rubins, 13 August 2019 QD Commercial Holdings Ltd

Extensions and alterations to include new entrance canopy, trolley park, additional retail areas, restaurant, kitchen, jungle gym, outside play, seating and plant sales areas, ramped access, erection of storage building and formation of additional parking and associated landscaping

Glebe Garden Centre, Foston Road, Countesthorpe

Report Author: Lloyd Bird, Senior Planning OfficerContact Details: Council Offices. 0116 272 7518

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT APPLICATION 19/0511/FUL BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:-

CONDITIONS

1. Statutory 3 year condition.2. Approved plans.3. Materials to be agreed.4. Scheme for surface water drainage to be submitted and agreed.5. Construction surface water management plan to be submitted and agreed.6. Surface water drainage system maintenance and management plan to be

submitted and agreed.7. Landscaping scheme, including boundary treatments to be submitted and

agreed.8. Landscaping works to be carried out within 1 year of completion of the

development.9. Protect existing trees with fencing.10. No new structures or hard surfacing within 5m of northern boundary

hedgerow.11. Vegetation to be cleared outside of bird nesting season.12. Access to be provided in accordance with approved plans.13. Vehicular visibility splays to be provided and maintained in perpetuity.14. Off-street car, coach and HGV parking and turning areas to be provided,

demarked, hard surfaced and maintained in perpetuity.15. Access drive and turning space to be hard surfaced 10m behind highway

boundary and shall be maintained in perpetuity.16. Details of cycle parking to be submitted and agreed.17. Details of any new external lighting scheme to be submitted and agreed.18. Details of kitchen extraction and ventilation to be submitted and agreed.19. Use of premises limited to retail as a garden centre only and no other use.20. Use of the extended shop and outdoor plant sales area to remain ancillary to

the main use of the premises and shall not be sold, leased, sub-divided or otherwise disposed of.

21. Use of the kitchen, café/restaurant, play barn and function room to remain ancillary to the main use of the premises and shall not be sold, leased, sub-divided or otherwise disposed of.

NOTES TO COMMITTEE

Relevant Planning Policies

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (July 2019)

Planning Practice Guidance

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

Policy CS2 Design of New DevelopmentPolicy CS13 Retailing and Other Town Centre UsesPolicy CS18 CountrysidePolicy CS19 Biodiversity and Geo-diversityPolicy CS21 Climate ChangePolicy CS22 Flood Risk ManagementPolicy CS24 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Blaby District Local Plan (Delivery) Development Plan Document (Adopted February 2019)

Policy DM2 Development within the Settlement BoundariesPolicy DM8 Local Parking and Highway Design Standards

Supporting Planning Documents

Blaby Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment (2020)

Consultation Summary

Blaby District Council - Economic Development Officer – Commented that rural development and improvement of this site is supported for limited small scale development provided Highways and parking requirements are met. This proposal however is considered to be overdevelopment of the site in scale and character which the applicant is required to address in the impact assessment.

Blaby District Council - Environmental Services – No objection, subject to the imposition of a condition regarding kitchen extraction details.

Blaby District Council - Planning Policy – Following the submission of a retail based sequential test and impact assessment, no objections are raised subject to the imposition of conditions.

Countesthorpe Parish Council – Have made the following comments:-

“The Parish Council has concerns regarding access and egress generally, including the width and position of the gates. There must be either a separate entrance and egress, which is big enough to take HGV vehicles, or one entrance/egress sufficient for two HGV vehicles to pass. The Parish Council understand that the existing second gate was closed by Leicestershire County Council Highways, due to highway safety. The existing access and egress will be insufficient.

There should be a coach drop off/pick up point and parking on site.

Traffic calming measures should be considered. The 30-mph speed restriction should be extended to the existing 40-mph limit.

The Parish Council has concerns regarding the impact on the junctions of Foston Road/A5199 and Foston Road/Leicester Road. Traffic at peak times is sometimes queuing as far back as the Glebe Garden Centre.

Consideration for pedestrian access and safety of pedestrians from the village.”

Following the submission of further details, the Parish Council made the following comments:-

“In principle the Parish Council support the project as the proposed development is an exciting project for the village and will be an asset to the community, however we have the following serious concerns:

Our previous comment regarding traffic calming and the speed limit appears to have not been considered.

The safety of local pedestrians accessing the site remains a concern. Amendments made to the parking to address the HGVs and coaches appears to compromise pedestrian safety within the site.

The jungle gym, new restaurant and multiple retailers will inevitably increase visitor numbers significantly.

The trip survey is based on the existing facilities during low season and does not reflect the increase, which must occur to make the facility financially viable.

The proposed development doubles the size of the existing facilities. It is noted that there should be provided a maximum of 420 parking spaces, however there is a shortfall of 285 spaces which will result in an overspill and congestion on the highway.

Previous development in the vicinity has already resulted in congestion on the highway.

We note there are no facilities on site for coaches and no obvious coach parking locally.

With multiple retailers, management of delivery vehicles must be carefully planned as there is limited space on site.

It is imperative that any drainage from the site does not impact on local flooding, which is a significant issue.”

After further consultation with the Parish Council, the following comments were made:-

“The Parish Council has examined the additional documents and still feels strongly that the parking proposals are not sufficient for the proposed large scale development. Our previous comments continue to be of serious concern.”

Harborough District Council – No comments received.

Leicestershire County Council - Archaeology – No objections.

Leicestershire County Council - Ecology – No objection, subject to the imposition of a condition requiring a 5m buffer with hedgerow.

Leicestershire County Council - Forestry – No objections.

Leicestershire County Council - Lead Local Flood Authority – No objection, subject to the imposition of conditions.

Leicestershire County Council - Highways – Following initial concerns, further details were submitted and consequently, the County Highway Authority do not object to the proposal, subject to the imposition of conditions relating to vehicular visibility splays, hard surfacing at the site access as well as car, coach and HGV parking all being provided.

Oadby and Wigston Borough Council – No comments received.

Severn Trent Water – No objection.

Third Party Representations

No letters of representation have been received.

Relevant Planning History

00/0782/1/PX Change of use of agricultural land to garden centre; Approvedside and rear extensions to existing shop plus 30/05/2001open sided glasshouse to rear and new entrancecanopy to side; extension to open sales area;additional parking areas; re-siting of portable building

99/0392/1/PX Alterations and extensions Approved11/08/1999

95/0910/1/PX Erection of covered area and walkway Approved25/09/1995

89/1870/1/PX Proposed new storage building Approved 23/01/1990

89/1808/1/PX Single storey front extension Approved 04/01/1990

81/1364/1/PY Site for sales/display of garden sheds and other Approvedgarden equipment 03/11/1981

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Site

The application site comprises an area of approximately 2.7 Hectares (27,000 sq m) and is situated outside of the Settlement Boundary of Countesthorpe in an area defined as Countryside on the policies Map of the Blaby District Local Plan (Delivery) Development Plan Document (2019).

The site is located on the north eastern fringes of Countesthorpe, approximately 150m to the west of the settlement boundary. According to the planning history and historic mapping, has been used as a garden centre/nursery since the 1970’s. The existing garden centre complex is not within Flood Zones 2 and 3, but is located approximately 130m to the west of Flood Zone 2, some 200m west of Flood Zone 3 and 250m west of an existing watercourse.

The site has benefitted from substantial extensions and currently hosts a large retail building with a floorspace of approximately 1,620 sq m, providing an indoor sales area, kitchen and restaurant, toilets, offices and staff areas. The site also provides some 230 sq m of covered storage, a 385 sq m outdoor sales area and 86 sq m of outdoor seating, including a parking area which provides approximately 86 off-street car parking spaces.

The garden centre building is of brick construction with large elements of glazing and some timber cladding. The majority of the roofs consist of insulated sheeting with some flat elements covered in felt/bitumen. The storage building is of portal frame construction with timber clad walls and corrugated profile sheeting for the roof. The access and vehicle circulation areas within the site consist of tarmac, however the parking and turning areas have been surfaced with loose gravel.

All site boundaries are predominantly screened by mature trees or hedgerows excluding the eastern site boundary which is largely exposed. Although the site is mainly flat in nature, the surrounding topography is somewhat gently undulating with a gradual reduction in land levels of between 6m and 8m from the site itself to the watercourse to the east. This results in the eastern boundary being the most exposed elevation to public view, however, these are somewhat limited due to established tree-lines beyond the application site to the south and east.

Countesthorpe Crematorium is located almost immediately to the south of the application site, separated only by Foston Road. Countesthorpe Cemetery is situated approximately 75m to the south west of the garden centre and the nearest residential dwelling is some 150m to the south west at No. 18 Foston Road. The remainder of the site is surrounded by countryside.

The Proposal

The proposal comprises various extensions and alterations to the existing garden centre building to include a new entrance canopy, trolley park, additional retail areas, restaurant, kitchen, jungle gym, outside play and seating areas, re-located outdoor plant sales areas, ramped accesses and the erection of new secure storage building, formation of additional parking areas and associated landscaping and drainage.

The proposed extensions to the building would equate to an additional 2,340 sq m of internal floorspace being formed. The majority of the proposed extensions would be located along the eastern flank elevation of the existing building, projecting some 18m in depth for a length of approximately 89m. This extension is proposed to host the new kitchen/restaurant, lobby and function room along with some additional internal retail areas. The majority of this element would remain subordinate to the two highest ‘glass-houses’ at a ridge height of some 5.4m.

A two storey element is also proposed within this proposed extension in order to house a proposed play barn and would have a pitched roof and a ridge height of 7.4m (reduced from 8.1m) a width of approximately 9.3m and a length of some 8.4m.

The remaining extension to the building would project beyond the northern elevation of the building, occupying the existing outdoor plant sales area. These extensions would boast an approximate width of 30m and 36m respectively at a total length of some 37m and at a total height of approximately 5.4m, would remain subordinate to the existing tallest elements. An additional canopy, cycle and trolley park are also proposed along the north western flank elevation.

Following ongoing discussions and negotiations with the applicant, an amended scheme has been proposed which has reduced the level of outdoor seating including the size of the secure storage building. In addition, a feature pond is proposed along with swales as a means of attenuating for surface water run-off.

The proposed outdoor seating area would comprise of two elevated platforms along the eastern flank elevation. These two platforms would be identical, boasting a width of approximately 12m and a length of 26m. The platforms would be separated in order to break up their visual impact and would have a combined floor area of 518 sq m, a significant reduction from the originally proposed 733 sq m of floor space. At their highest, the floor level of these platforms would be elevated approximately 2.1m above the existing ground level and would include a 1m high balustrade.

The proposed storage building would be located beyond the northern flank elevation and would replace the existing detached store. The building would have a width of approximately 10m and a length of 44.3m. The building would have a pitched roof

and a maximum height of 4m. The floorspace of this proposed building has been reduced from 388 sq m to 279 sq m.

An outdoor retail/plant sales area is proposed to the east of the proposed outdoor seating areas and would be enclosed by a newly planted hedgerow, replacing an existing conifer hedgerow which appears out of place in this countryside location. Sustainable drainage features incorporating swales and an attenuation pond are proposed to the east of the re-planted hedgerow as part of the site’s surface water drainage strategy.

The parking arrangement on site is also to be revised in order to provide a total of 142 off-street car parking spaces. 13 of these spaces would be allocated for disabled persons with another 13 parking spaces allocated for parent/child users. Seven parking spaces are to be provided immediately to the south of the proposed outdoor seating are for customers picking up/collecting goods from the relocated outdoor plant sales area. Planning Considerations

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

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

NATIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The National Planning Policy Framework establishes the key principles for proactively delivering sustainable development through the development plan system and the determination of planning applications. It sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. At a very high level, the objective of sustainable development can be summarised as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, which are independent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways (so that opportunities can be taken to secure net gains across each of the different objectives.) These objectives are:

An economic objective; A social objective; and

An environmental objective.

For decision taking, this means:

Approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or

Where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless;i. The application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets

of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or

ii. Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) provides supporting guidance to the interpretation of the NPPF.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

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

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

Policy CS2 – Design of New Development

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

Policy CS13 – Retailing and Other Town Centre Uses

Policy CS13 seeks to deliver the services and facilities required to meet the needs of the population of the District, maintain, and where appropriate improve, the position of retail centres within the retail hierarchy, and make sure that the existing centres, primarily Blaby town Centre, have opportunities to grow in order to enhance their vitality and viability.

Proposals for retail, leisure and other town centre uses, as defined in the NPPF, will be subject to a sequential test. This requires main town centre uses to be located within town centres, then edge of centre locations and then, only if suitable sequentially preferable sites are not available, in out-of-centre locations.

New retail and leisure developments should not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the vitality and viability of any other existing centre. All applications for new retail and leisure developments in excess of 929m² gross and not within an

existing town, district, rural, or local centre will be required to provide impact assessments.

Assessments will be required to demonstrate:

The impact of the proposal on the vitality and viability of any centre, including local consumer choice and trade in the centres; and

The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in any centre.

The proposed development would result in an extension of retail floorspace in exceedance of 929 sq. m in an out-of-centre location. Therefore, this planning application has been supported by the submission of a Retail Impact Assessment which includes a sequential and impact test. The merits of these submissions will be discussed later in this report.

Policy CS18 – Countryside

Policy CS18 designates land outside of limits to built development and outside of Green Wedges and Areas of Separation as Countryside. The site is located in an area of Countryside, where Policy CS18 Countryside of the Local Plan Core Strategy (2013) applies.

Within areas designated as Countryside, planning permission will not be granted for built development, or other development which would have a significantly adverse effect on the appearance or character of the landscape. However, planning permission will be granted for limited small scale employment and leisure development (including dwellings essential for these needs) subject to consideration of its impacts.

The policy also goes on to state that the need to retain Countryside will be balanced against the need to provide new development (including housing) in the most sustainable locations.

Due to the site’s location along with the overall size of the proposed development, a Landscape Visual Statement has been submitted in order to provide a focussed assessment of the potential effects that the proposed development could have on identified sensitive landscape and visual receptors that are in proximity of the the application site.

Policy CS19 – Bio-diversity and Geo-diversity

Policy CS19 outlines a strategic objective to protect the important areas of the Districts natural environment (species and habitats), landscape and geology and to improve biodiversity, wildlife habitats and corridors.

Given the established use on the site, the County Council’s Environmental Planning Assistant does not consider that a protected species survey is necessary. An objection was received on the basis that proposed outdoor sales area would encroach on to an important wildlife corridor and should be protected with a 5m buffer (i.e. no development to occur or hard standings to be laid within this buffer

strip). Amendments have been made to the scheme to incorporate a 5m buffer strip into the scheme’s layout and design. A condition is also proposed to ensure that this buffer strip is protected in future. On this basis, the County Council’s Environmental Planning Assistant maintains no objection to the proposed development.

A condition is also proposed in respect of the proposed removal/clearing of the existing conifer hedgerow or any other vegetation on site so that it is undertaken outside of the bird nesting season. A detailed landscaping scheme will also be requested to ensure that any replacement planting contains native species.

Policy CS21 – Climate Change

Climate Change is one of the greatest long-term challenges facing human society. Policy CS21 outlines Blaby District Council’s commitment to tackle climate change and supports development proposals that reduce greenhouse gas emissions (mitigate), minimise vulnerability and provide resilience (adapt) to its effects by focussing development in the most sustainable locations, incorporating sustainable design principles, encouraging the use of renewable, low carbon and decentralised energy and providing resilience to reduce the risks of flooding.

Given the site’s countryside location, your Officers have worked with the applicant to ensure that the development has been amended and revised to include cycle parking, permeable surfaces within the site as well as the incorporation of sustainable drainage systems. It is considered that the proposed extensions would result in the implementation of swales and a pond which would enhance the site’s management of surface water that would not only be aesthetically in keeping with the countryside, but would also provide habitats for wildlife. It is therefore considered that the proposal accords with adopted policies and thus the development is in accordance with Policy CS21.

Policy CS22 – Flood Risk Management

Policy CS22 seeks to encourage the use of renewable energy production in suitable locations in order to minimise dependency on the use of energy use/use of valuable resources. Policy CS22 also aims to minimise vulnerability and the risks associated with flooding to property, infrastructure and people by promoting resilience to flooding, taking into account Climate Change.

The site is located outside of Flood Zones 2 or 3, where there is an increased risk of flooding and none of the proposed extensions would lead to an incursion into either or these areas. However, the watercourse some 250m to the east of the site has been known to flood in recent times, therefore, it is considered that the proposed inclusion of sustainable drainage systems will seek to prevent the resulting development from contributing to any existing surface water problems in the locality.

A Flood Risk Assessment and drainage plan have been submitted and accordingly, the Lead Local Flood Authority and Severn Trent have been notified of the application. No objections have been raised to the proposal, subject to the imposition of pre-commencement conditions being imposed pertaining to the requirement for a detailed surface water drainage scheme to be submitted and

approved. The indicative strategy proposes the use of permeable surfaces within the car park, swales and an attenuation pond and are considered to be acceptable in principle.

Policy CS24 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

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

Your Officers have worked with the applicant to ensure that the development has been amended and revised so that it accords with adopted policies and thus the development is in accordance with Policy CS24.

Blaby District Local Plan (Delivery) Development Plan Document (2019)

The following policies are the most relevant to the proposed development.

Policy DM2 – Development in the Countryside

Policy DM2 states that in the Countryside, proposals consistent with Policy CS18 will be supported where they meet several criteria, relating to the appearance and character of the existing landscape, development form and buildings, amenity impacts and the impact on the vitality and viability of existing centres. The policy also provides specific criteria that apply to the change of use of existing buildings.

Policy DM8 – Local Parking and Highway Design Standards

Policy DM8 seeks to provide a consistent approach to local car parking standards and highway design. It goes on to state that the Leicestershire Highways Design Guide sets out, amongst other things, standards and policies for parking and highway design that will need to be considered for all new development.

The existing garden centre currently benefits from 86 parking spaces. The development proposes a further 49 car parking spaces, including allocated parking for disabled and parent/child visitors, resulting in a total off-street parking provision of 135 spaces. Furthermore, an additional six spaces are proposed for a pick-up/collection area to the south of the proposed outdoor sales area.

Having regard to the comments of the County Highway Authority, it is considered that the proposed parking arrangements, which have been calculated on a ‘demand based assessment’ undertaken by the applicant, are satisfactory and in accordance with Policy DM8.

Other Material Considerations

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

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

Principle of development; Impact on Countryside; Impact on Neighbouring Occupiers; Highway Impacts.

Principle of Development

The site is located within Countryside and is to the north east of the settlement boundary of Countesthorpe. The site has historically been used as a garden centre/nursery since the 1970’s and has benefitted from various planning permissions that have helped to facilitate the growth of the site and respective business to the level that it is this present day.

The proposal seeks consent for an additional 2,340 sq m of floorspace that would provide a larger indoor sales area, a function room, secure storage and would also enable a larger kitchen, restaurant and outdoor seating area including an internal play barn. An extended outdoor sales area is also included. Given the size and nature of the proposed development along with the site’s ‘out of centre’ location, a Retail Impact Assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Core Strategy Policy CS13 and includes a sequential and impact test that assess the likely impacts on neighbouring retail centres.

Sequential Test

Paragraph 86 of the NPPF states that “Local Planning Authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses which are neither in an existing centre nor in accordance with an up-to-date plan. Main town centre uses should be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations; and only if suitable sites are not available (or expected to become available within a reasonable period) should out of centre sites be considered.”

The purpose of a Sequential Test in retail terms is to guide main town centre uses towards town centre locations first. Only then, if no town centre locations are available, should proposals be located to edge of centre locations. If neither town centre nor edge of centre locations are available, only then can out of centre locations (with preference for accessible sites which are well connected to the town centre) be considered. This sequential approach also supports the viability and vitality of town centres by placing existing town centres foremost in both plan-making and decision-taking.

In support of the NPPF, Policy CS13 of the Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013) sets out a hierarchy of retail centres in the District of Blaby (and some centres outside of the District boundary, but which have a functional relationship with the District). This hierarchy classifies the settlement of Countesthorpe as being a “Local Centre” which is lower in the retail hierarchy than Town Centres, District Centres and Rural Centres.

The submitted Sequential Test has given consideration to centres that are both within and outside of Blaby District and therefore takes into account centres that may have a functional relationship with the District. For full disclosure, the catchment area focussed on centres that are located within a 5-mile radius of the application site and as such, the following centres have been identified and considered through the Sequential Test, below:-

Blaby District:

o Blaby town centre;o Enderby town centre;o Narborough district centre;o Cosby local centre;o Glen Parva local centre;o Whetstone local centre;o Countesthorpe local centre.

Oadby and Wigston Borough:

o Wigston town centre;o South Wigston district centre;o Oadby district centre.

Harborough District:

o Broughton Astley district centre;o Fleckney local centre;o Great Glen local centre;o Kibworth Beauchamp local centre.

The submitted Sequential Test concludes that due to the scale of the garden centre and the need for the extension and the existing floorspace to be located on the site, no sites were identified in town or district centres which could be considered to be both suitable and available to accommodate the proposed extension to Glebe Garden Centre.

Impact Assessment

Further to paragraph 86 of the NPPF, paragraph 89 states that when “assessing applications for retail and leisure development outside town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to date plan, Local Planning Authorities should require an

impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold.”

Having regard to paragraph 89 of the NPPF, Policy CS13 of the Core Strategy states that “New retail and leisure developments should not have an unacceptable impact on the vitality and viability of any other existing centre”. In addition, all “applications for new retail and leisure developments in excess of 929 sq m gross floorspace and not within an existing town, district, rural or local centre will be required to provide impact assessments. Assessments will be required to demonstrate the following:

The impact of the proposal on the vitality and viability of any centre, including local consumer choice and trade in the centres; and

The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in any centre.”

In simple terms, the purpose of the Impact Assessment is for Local Planning Authorities to consider the impact over time of certain out of centre and edge of centre development proposals on town centre vitality/viability and investment. It is considered to be an important mechanism in order for the District Planning Authority to assess the impact of development proposals in relation to all town centres that may be affected, which are not necessarily just those closest to the proposal and may be in neighboring authority areas.

In order to assess the level of impact the proposed development would have on other town, district and local centres, the Impact Assessment provides a focus on the following matters:-

Turnover of the proposed extension; Existing provision; Trade diversion; Impact on planned investment; Impact of proposed restaurant and play barn; and Impact on Town Centre investment and vitality and viability.

Turnover of the proposed extension

Appendix 3 of the Impact Assessment explains the methodology for calculating the likely turnover of the proposed extension. This calculation is based on a formula that multiplies the net retail floorspace by an average sales density for the type of retailer (i.e. £ per sq m). The methodology goes on to state that “…extensions to existing retail facilities generally trade at a lower level than the existing floorspace due to the new floorspace principally improving the offer and range of goods for existing customers, thereby limiting the ability to trade at the same level as the existing floorspace” and that “typically, extensions operate at around 50% of the average sales are for that type of retailer”. In addition, the methodology states that “…a significant proportion of the garden centre’s turnover is derived from the external/outdoor sales area rather than the traditional indoor retail floorspace.”

In conclusion, the resulting density has been calculated by excluding the lobby, checkouts and areas behind the checkouts leading to a net retail floorspace of

approximately £1,050 per sq m. With the proposed formula applied, the anticipated turnover of the proposed development is likely to lead to uplift in retail turnover of approximately £1.22million per annum. This figure is not disputed by the District Planning Authority.

Existing provision

Paragraph 5.4 takes into account the ‘like-affects-like’ principle when considering the impact of a proposed development and its associated trade diversion patterns. By way of an example, this means that it may not be appropriate to compare the impact of an out of centre DIY store with a small scale town centre store as the two would usually not compete directly.

Paragraph 5.6 of the Impact Assessment splits the existing provision of garden centres into categories based on their indoor floorspace levels and identifies Palmers Garden Centre in Ullesthorpe and Sapcote Garden Centre as being relatively comparable in size to that of the proposed extension.

Paragraph 5.10 – 5.17 demonstrates that the majority of existing centres included in the catchment area do not have any stores selling similar product ranges to that already offered at the garden centre and that would be sold from the extension, however, those that do sell similar product ranges are limited to small retailers that primarily serve a very limited catchment area. As such, it is concluded that the overlap in offer and catchments with existing in-centre stores is negligible. Again, this conclusion is accepted by the District Planning Authority.

Trade diversion

Having regard for trade diversion, paragraph 5.18 of the Impact Assessment confirms that the provision of an enhanced garden centre will divert trade from existing garden centres of a similar scale or offer. Effectively, this means that the proposed extension will compete with existing larger garden centres, such as Palmers at Enderby and Ullesthorpe, Sapcote Garden Centre and Dobbie’s at Stapleton and Rothley, as well as smaller units within the catchment area.

Paragraph 5.25 states that the garden centres most likely to be impacted by the proposed extension are all situated in out-of-centre locations. On this basis, these garden centres are not afforded policy protection due to their location on out-of-centre sites. This is a position that is accepted by the District Planning Authority.

The Impact Assessment also acknowledges in paragraph 5.26 that there is expected to be a negligible level of trade diverted from defined town, district and local centres within the primary catchment area, however, this is likely to be spread across defined centres as the proposed extension will not increase the overall range or type of products available for sale.

Given the ‘like-affects-like’ principle, it is considered that the lack of competition within defined centres is highlighted by the fact that there are no comparable offers within any of the town, district and local centres, as well as a limited overlap in the types of goods available from existing stores. The District Planning Authority

accepts this position and considers that the proposal will lead to only a negligible level of trade diversion.

Impact on planned investment

Paragraph 5.27 identifies a number of committed and planned in-centre investment projects (public and private) within the District and beyond. The following projects are listed below:-

Lubbesthorpe Sustainable Urban Extension (Blaby); Blaby Town Centre Masterplan; Highcross Redevelopment (Leicester City Centre); and Oadby and Wigston Town Centre Masterplans.

In addition, a list of other known commitments are identified in paragraph 5.30:

Everards Brewery/Fosse Park (Blaby District) – planning permission granted for the delivery of expansion to shopping park including food and drink uses;

Welland Business Park (Harborough District) – planning permission granted for the delivery of non-food retail bulky goods units, which could be used for B!, B2 and B8 uses;

Scraptoft North Strategic Development Area (Harborough District) – submission of a planning application for strategic housing development, including a local centre providing a mixture of small scale retail uses aimed at serving the wider strategic housing development;

Airfield Farm (Harborough District) – reserved matters consent exists for the delivery of a local centre to provide a mixture of small scale retail uses aimed at serving the wider Airfield Farm strategic housing development;

Golden Gate Park (Leicester City) – planning permission granted for the delivery of redevelopment of former Sainsbury’s store, including mixture of retail and leisure units alongside employment units.

Paragraph 5.28 claims that these identified planned investments located within defined centres would all provide a very different offer in terms of goods than those offered at the proposed garden centre extension. The District Planning Authority agrees with the conclusions outlined in the submitted Impact Assessment that there would be no trade diverted from the aforementioned investment commitments due to the type of goods being sold not be comparable in nature as these sites would serve a different market when compared to a garden centre. The District Planning Authority agrees that the proposed garden centre extension would not have a significantly adverse impact on the previously identified planned investment.

Impact of proposed restaurant and play barn

Paragraph 5.31 of the Impact Assessment states that the both the café/restaurant and play barn are ancillary uses intended to serve the existing customers already

visiting the garden centre. In addition, paragraphs 5.32 – 5.34 state that due to the leisurely nature of garden centres, customers tend to stay in the establishment for extended periods in order to browse. This extended stay is enhanced further with the offer of an on-site café/restaurant facility, rather than being a single restaurant destination.

A similar argument is made for the presence of the play barn, with paragraph 5.35 claiming that whilst the play barn may encourage small numbers of trips to the site for this specific element, it is considered to be ancillary and not a separate entity given its size when compared to the main use of the site and due to the likelihood of visitors browsing the garden centre as part of a linked trip.

Paragraph 5.36 identifies four existing play barn facilities within a 5-mile radius of the site, one of which is located in a defined town centre (Wigston) and the other three being situated in out-of-centre locations. Paragraph 5.37 goes on to state that a small level of trade could be drawn from the existing town centre facility, however, this is likely to be very limited due to the fact that this facility exists within a pub and forms part of the facility’s wider food and drink offer.

The District Planning Authority accepts this position and considers that the proposed play barn would have a negligible impact on Wigston town centre. Appropriate conditions are proposed so that the play barn remains an ancillary feature of the garden centre.

Impact on Town Centre investment and vitality and viability

Paragraph 5.39 makes reference to the Leicester and Blaby Retail Study, concluding that “…all of the defined centres within the primary catchment area (within Blaby and Leicester) are all vital and viable centres, with no centre showing any characteristics of being vulnerable or in a state of decline.”

Paragraph 5.40 states that the impact on defined centres is likely to be negligible due to the limited turnover generated by the proposed extension to the garden centre, including the lack of similarity in the goods on offer between the extended garden centre and the defined centres. Table 5 within paragraph 5.41 of the Impact Assessment illustrates this by considering the impact on the comparison goods turnover on each defined centre, based on a proportionate split of diverted trade from centres which have stores selling some of the same product ranges. Upon consideration of these details, District Planning Authority agrees with the findings relating to the likely impacts on town centre investment and vitality and viability.

Overall, the conclusions drawn from the Retail Impact Assessment are supported by the District Planning Authority’s Development Strategy team, who have stated that the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the requirements as set out in Policy CS13 of the Core Strategy and accordingly, the NPPF. Conditions have been suggested by the Development Strategy team in order to ensure that development is carried out in accordance with the assumptions set out in the Retail Impact Assessment as this ensures that the impact of the development has been adequately assessed and considered. Two suggested conditions are in respect of hours of use and the type of goods sold from the site.

The site currently operates between 9:00am – 17:30pm, Monday to Saturday and 10:30am – 16:30pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays, but is not subject to an existing condition limiting the garden centre’s hours of use. On occasions, the site also operates extended opening hours when hosting seasonal events. It is considered that the imposition of an ‘hours’ condition would be difficult to sustain based on necessity and reasonableness considering the proposed development is only viewed as having a negligible impact on other centres within the catchment area and the District Planning Authority considers that this would be difficult to justify, especially as no existing restrictions exist on the site and given that the proposed use is unlikely to have a significantly detrimental impact on neighbouring uses.

It is also readily acknowledged that most modern garden centres exist due to their diverse product range which typically goes beyond the limitations of plants, compost and gardening tools. Glebe Garden Centre offers a range of goods and products, the majority of which are garden related along with some ancillary sales of food, outdoor clothing, household and seasonal items. Given that these types of goods have been historically sold from the site, it is considered unreasonable to impose a condition that would restrict the business from selling goods which it currently stocks. However, the District Planning Authority acknowledges that to grant planning permission for an unrestricted retail (Use Class A1) use could have a detrimental impact on other centres, and as such, any proposed conditions should seek to strike a balance between protecting other centres whilst not compromising the profitability for the existing garden centre.

As a means of compromise, the District Planning Authority considers that suitable control of the site can be exercised by limiting the use of the site as a garden centre only and for no other purpose (under Use Class A1). In addition, conditions are proposed to limit the use of the extensions to the retail floorspace, kitchen, café/restaurant, function room and outdoor plant sales areas as ancillary elements to the main use of the site as a garden centre and to prevent them from being sub-divided, sold, leased or severed from the site as separate entities.

Therefore, on the basis of the submitted information, the District Planning Authority considers that the proposed extension to the garden centre is unlikely to have a significantly adverse impact on the viability and vitality of defined centres and on existing, committed and planned investment. Conditions are proposed in order to prevent the garden centre from being sub-divided and fractured in order to safeguard the vitality and viability of defined centres that are identified in the Core Strategy.

Impact on Countryside

The site is located on land designated as Countryside and is predominantly enclosed on its northern, eastern and western boundaries by large arable fields and a gently rolling topography..

Paragraph 170 of the NPPF recognises importance of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, stating that the planning system should contribute to enhancing the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing local valued landscapes.

This is also supported by Policy CS18 of the Council’s adopted Core Strategy and DM2 of the Council’s Delivery DPD which work symbiotically in order to protect important areas of the District’s natural environment/landscape and to preserve and enhance the cultural heritage of the District, recognising its contribution to local distinctiveness.

Supporting guidance is also provided in the Blaby Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment and identifies the site as being within an area known as Blaby, Countesthorpe and Whetstone Fringe. The general characteristics of this area are described as:

Rolling farmland; Small to medium scale field pattern; Strips of woodland give the area a perceived ‘wooded’ character; A landscape that is heavily influenced by urbanising features such as a highly

developed road network, golf courses and playing fields.

This application has been supported with the submission of a Landscape Visual Statement which assesses the potential effects of the proposed development upon an identified sensitive landscape and visual receptors close to the application site. Paragraphs 1.44 -1.47 of the submitted strategy conclude that the proposed development would not be a departure from an existing development typology and would not conflict with the local landscape pattern.

The existing garden centre complex is limited to single storey structures only and whilst the proposed development would occupy a substantial footprint it would predominantly remain in keeping with the scale of the existing buildings on the site, at a height of approximately 5.4m. The proposed play barn would include a structure with a slightly higher height of 7.4m, however, this element is such a small aspect of the overall proposal, it is not considered to be detrimental to the wider character and appearance of the landscape.

The site currently benefits from a substantial level of planting along the Foston Road entrance and its northern and western boundaries. The eastern elevation of the existing garden centre building is perhaps the most exposed to public views from the east and may afford views of the proposed outside seating area. However, given a sharp change in land levels towards the existing watercourse it is considered that the eastern field boundary would provide a degree of screening due to the presence of trees and mature hedgerows. This was noted when the site was viewed from the public footpath network to the south and south east of the site.

Additional planting is proposed as part of an indicative landscaping scheme. It is considered that the principle of new planting would partially screen the site from the east and therefore, a condition is proposed in order to secure an acceptable planting proposal made up of native species of hedgerow.

Concerns were raised by the Council’s Economic Development team that the proposed extensions could lead to the overdevelopment of the site. It is acknowledged that the overall increase in footprint is significant. As such, your officers have assessed the visual impacts of the scheme, including the existing site boundaries and proposed mitigation measures. Based on the submitted details, it is

considered that the proposed development would remain in keeping with the existing built form and general scale of the garden centre. Any visual impacts will be mitigated through the submission and subsequent approval of a detailed landscaping scheme which would be secured by a condition. On this basis, your officers are satisfied that the proposal will not have a significantly adverse impact on the landscape and will remain in keeping with the character and appearance of the area.

Impact on Neighbouring Occupiers

The nearest residential dwelling is located approximately 150m to the west at No.18 Foston Road. The heavily vegetated western site boundary and No.18’s orientation would only afford distant and oblique views of the garden centre. The existing boundary treatments will also provide sufficient screening to the proposed extensions and will not lead to issues such as loss of privacy and light or overbearing impact.

No details have been provided at this time in respect of odour extraction and ventilation equipment for the proposed restaurant use and shall therefore be secured via the imposition of a condition at the request of the Council’s Environmental Services team. Given that the site already has an existing ancillary café/restaurant in operation, the condition will be worded in a manner requiring details of the kitchen extraction and ventilation systems to be submitted prior to their installation.

The proposed outdoor seating area would be sited on the eastern flank elevation, away from residential dwellings on Foston Road and Rosebank Road. Although the site has no conditioned hours of use, no changes are sought to the site’s existing hours of operation. On this basis, it is not envisaged that an undesirable level of noise and disturbance would emanate from the site as a result of the proposed extensions.

Highway Impacts

The County Highway Authority had initially raised concerns due to there being insufficient information submitted for them to assess the highway impacts of the proposal. Countesthorpe Parish Council maintain their concerns that the proposed development does not provide a satisfactory level of off-street parking and has an access of insufficient width to allow for dual access/egress of a heavy goods vehicle.

Further information was submitted leading to changes to the proposed parking layout, improvements to the intended site access including the closure of a secondary gated access and the submission of trip generation information. The parking arrangement on site would provide a total of 142 off-street car parking spaces. 13 of these spaces would be allocated for disabled persons with another 13 parking spaces allocated for parent/child users. Seven parking spaces are to be provided immediately to the south of the proposed outdoor seating are for customers picking up/collecting goods from the relocated outdoor plant sales area. This would in turn materialise in an increase of approximately 56 on-site car parking spaces.

Based on the submitted details, the County Highway Authority is satisfied that the proposed development can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site and that is in

accordance with the Leicestershire Highways Design Guide. The County Highway Authority is also satisfied that the proposal is unlikely to lead to an unacceptable impact on the local highway network and have recommended the imposition of conditions in respect of the access and visibility splays, car parking spaces and surface treatments.

It is noted that Countesthorpe Parish Council remain concerned by the proposed parking and access arrangements and have commented that exponentially more parking spaces are required on the site in order to cater for demand, and that the proposed scheme has a shortfall of some 280 parking spaces. No further information has been provided to explain or quantify why more parking spaces are required. However, given the applicant has undertaken an on-site parking survey of which the results are considered to be satisfactory by the County Highway Authority, it is considered that refusing the proposed development on a lack of could not be reasonably sustained or justified.

Cycle parking is proposed on the site in order to encourage alternative modes of transportation and a partially illuminated footway links the site to the conurbation of Countesthorpe. On this basis, the proposal demonstrates a level of sustainability.

Conclusion

The application site is situated within an area of Countryside on the eastern fringes of the settlement of Countesthorpe. The site benefits from an established retail use as a garden centre with an ancillary restaurant. The proposed development will predominantly utilise previously developed land within the application site and the proposed extensions are sought to improve the shopping experience for customer and enhance its visual appearance in relation to its surroundings.

Assessments have been undertaken and consideration has been given to the potential impacts on the vitality and viability of defined centres, including committed and planned for investments. Based on the submitted details, your officers consider that these potential impacts are likely to be negligible.

In addition, consideration has been given to the proposal’s impact on the wider landscape through the submission of a Landscape Visual Statement. Having visited the site and the surrounding area, your officers are satisfied that the existing tree/hedgerow coverage and the implementation of a sympathetic planting scheme will mitigate the proposed development so that its potential impacts on the wider countryside setting are minimalised.

The proposal, by virtue of its siting, limited scale and boundary treatments is unlikely to be injurious to the amenities presently enjoyed by occupiers of the nearest residential dwellings. Furthermore, the County Highway Authority are satisfied that the proposed access and parking arrangements are satisfactory in order to accommodate the perceived trip generations to the site.

The three dimensions of sustainable development have been considered (economic, social and environmental) as set out in the NPPF. The proposed development is in conformity with the Development Plan and it is supported by the relevant policies of

the NPPF. In light of the above, this revised scheme is considered to be acceptable and accordingly it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the stated conditions.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

19/0765/FUL Registered Date Mr P Hathalia30 July 2019

Change of use of part of club house to include hot food takeaway.

Clubhouse, Warwick Road, Whetstone LE8 6LW

Report Author: Jeff Badland, Planning OfficerContact Details: Council Offices. 0116 272 7542

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT APPLICATION 19/0765/FUL BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE IMPOSITION OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. 3 year time limit2. Approved plans condition3. Hours of use limited to 1700 to 2300 hours4. Extraction system to be provided in accordance with approved details5. Extraction equipment to be maintained in accordance with maintenance

schedule6. Change of use shall only relate to the part of the building, measuring 37square

metres in area and shown on the Ground Floor Plan.

NOTES TO COMMITTEE

The applicant is being brought to Planning Committee following a call in request by Councillors Coe and Jackson for the following reasons:

“The proposed change of use would not accord with Policy DM1, in that it would fail to provide a satisfactory relationship with nearby uses that would not be significantly detrimental to the amenities enjoyed by existing occupiers including considerations of privacy, light noise and disturbance, and vibration, emissions, hours of working and vehicular activity”.

Relevant Planning Policies

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (February 2019)

Planning Practice Guidance


CS2 - Design of New DevelopmentCS10 - Transport InfrastructureCS13 - Retailing and Other Town Centre UsesCS15 - Open Space, Sport and RecreationCS16 - Green Wedges

CS24 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Blaby Local Plan (Delivery) Development Plan Document Adopted Feb 2019

DM2 - Development in the CountrysideDM6 - Neighbourhood ParadesDM8 - Local Parking and Highway Design Standards


Blaby District Council, Environmental Services –Objection - insufficient information had been provided to explain how impacts of noise and odour would be mitigated. Expressed concerns that the development may have an adverse impact on the residential dwellings located approximately as close as 30 metres from the Clubhouse. Queried whether the change of use would introduce any changes to the current lighting scheme.

Listed the following information to assess these impacts: - Diagram of internal arrangement of ductwork;- Information on filters and pre-filters chosen for air control;- Information on the chosen silencers to limit noise;- Characteristics of the cooker hood; - Information on the ventilation system operation;- The position and height of the flue;- Noise impact assessment.

On reconsultation - No objection, subsequent to the provision of the requested information, and the negotiation of acceptable details. Stated that the proposed system would not have an adverse impact in relation to noise and odour, provided that the system is fitted in accordance with the final documents submitted.

Leicestershire County Council, Highways – No objection. The impacts of the development on highway safety would not be unacceptable, and the impacts on the road network would not be severe. The proposal utilises the existing clubhouse access and parking. Although visibility from the existing entrance is below the standards of the Local Highways Design Guide, given the nature of the proposal, the Local Highway Authority (LHA) cannot demonstrate that the proposals would significantly increase the number of cars exiting the facility. Highlights that the facility does not have existing pedestrian access via Warwick Road.

Sport England – No objection, as the proposed development is for ancillary facilities supporting the principal use of the site as a playing field, and does not affect the quantity or quality of playing pitches or otherwise adversely affect their use.

Whetstone Parish Council – objects to the application for the following reasons:

“Lack of details in the application: No details of hours of opening are included in this application and because the club now sits opposite a residential estate, this is a key piece of information.

The type of takeaway is not specified in the application, although it is understood to be a chip shop style service. The village already has a good serving of food providers.

The offer is based upon access from inside the club and from outside the club, so, traffic issues will be generated and are not specified as to expected volumes and footfall. Also, no control would be in place to prevent outsiders entering the club through the designed ordering and waiting area, so how can the safety and protection of youngsters using the club’s facilities be guaranteed and safeguarding has to be considered due to the nature of the host sites core business.”

On reconsulation the Parish comments: “The application lacks the previously highlighted and objected to details in the original application made and this Parish Council’s subsequent objection.” The previous reasons for objection are again repeated


During the initial consultation period, three letters of objection were received, objecting to the proposed development on the following grounds:

Smell from hot food affecting residential amenity; Traffic and anti-social behaviour caused by additional users; Various other ‘eateries’ in the area serving hot food; and Decrease in value of property.

Relevant Planning History

94/0764/1/PX Alterations and extensions to form extended bar Approved and children’s playgroup

02/0022/1/PY Extension to existing 5-A-Side football pitch, erection Approvedof 3.5m high perimeter fencing and 6 X 8.0m high columns supporting 12 lights, comprising of floodlights

05/1192/1/VY Variation of condition 2 on 02/0022 for floodlighting Approvedto football pitch between 3.30 - 9.30pm Saturdays & Sundays

11/0084/1/PY Single storey extension to north elevation Approved

13/0153/1/PX Single storey rear extensions to include new Approvedchanging rooms and toilet facilities, creation of an all weather pitch, alterations to car park layout, eight 6m high floodlights and one 6m high CCTV column

14/0896/1/VY Variation to condition 3 attached to planning Approvedpermission 13/0153/1/PX

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Site

The Whetstone Boys Club is a sports and social club within the Whetstone Parish. The clubhouse is a single-storey, flat roofed building with a utilitarian appearance constructed from grey-rendered brick. Within the clubhouse are a number of facilities, including a bar, a community hall, and a kitchen with an accompanying serving area, which is the subject of this application. The clubhouse is served by two car parks to the southeast and to the southwest.

The site is located within the Soar Valley South Green Wedge, situated between Narborough and Whetstone. A residential estate is situated to the south of the clubhouse, beyond the car park, and across Warwick Road. To the north are the sports fields associated with the club.

The Proposal

The submitted application for planning permission proposes the change of use of part of the clubhouse of the Whetstone Boys Club to a hot food takeaway. The intended audience of the facility will be both users of the club, and residents of the wider area. A takeaway which provided a service to existing visitors to the sports club could be classed as being ancillary to the existing use and therefore not require planning permission. However, in this case, as the business proposes to open outside the operational hours of the sports club and to non-members, planning permission is required for this material change of use.

The change of use will apply to the area of the clubhouse currently used as a kitchen and serving area. Although the form of the existing kitchen will not change, the existing serving area will be divided into a waiting area and cold store.

The proposed change of use will include the replacement of the existing wall-mounted extraction canopy with a new ventilation system. This will translate into a system of ductwork on the roof of the clubhouse, including a vertical ventilation flue on the roof.

The site will utilise the existing vehicular access and parking facilities to the southwest of the clubhouse, and will be accessed through doors within the clubhouse, and from the existing car park. Planning Considerations

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

NATIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (February 2019)

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

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

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

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

Specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.

In addition, the NPPF sets out that the Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths and to meet the twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future. In order to achieve this, significant weight is placed on the planning system to encourage and support economic growth and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth.

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

DEVELOPMENT PLAN


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


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

The only externally-visible element of the scheme will be the introduction of stainless steel ducts, including a vertical flue, on the roof of the clubhouse. It is noted that the boundary of Whetstone Boys Club is bordered by mature vegetation, which reaches approximately 3m in height along the southern boundary of the application site. Although the vertical element of the flue will reach 6.1m above ground level, it will be located approximately 27m from the southern boundary of the site, and 55m from the western boundary; hence, this boundary treatment is sufficient to prevent views of the equipment from the perspectives of Warwick Road and The Dicken.

However, due to its higher land level, the ductwork will be visible from the perspective of Henson Close. Nevertheless, the proposed flue will join other substantial vertical features and mechanical roof features within the character area of the Boys Club, such as the numerous floodlights and air conditioning units. Although the flue will be a substantial addition to the roof, when considered alongside the numerous other utilitarian elements of the clubhouse that are visible from the perspective of Henson Close, it is not considered that the visible impact of the flue and ventilation system will be significant.

Policy CS10 – Transport Infrastructure

Policy CS10 aims to reduce the need to travel by private car by locating new development so that people can access services and facilities without reliance on private motor vehicles. As the proposed access to the site does not include pedestrian access, and is in a peripheral location, the application does not meet this policy requirement.

However, the applicant has argued that the facility will predominantly serve users of the sports club, in addition to utilising online food-delivery platforms, reducing the need for customers to visit the site, and hence the need for sustainable transport options. Therefore, although the conflict with Policy CS10 adds weight against the proposals, this weight is somewhat mitigated.

CS13 – Retailing and Other Town Centre Uses

Policy CS13 specifies that proposals for retail uses, as defined in the NPPF, will be subject to a sequential test. This requires main town centre uses to be located within town centres, then edge of centre locations if none are available, and then, only if suitable sequentially preferable sites are not available, in out-of-centre locations. This policy is intended to prevent the loss of town centre uses to other locations. However, ‘hot food takeaways’ are not included within the listed of town centre uses in the glossary to the NPPF and as such the proposal would not need to be subject to the sequential test and Policy CS13 would not apply.

In this case, the applicant has made the case that the intended use of the facility necessitates its location within the existing clubhouse. As prohibitive running costs have allegedly prevented the sports club from making use of the facilities, the club’s management intended to outsource the onsite facility to retain some of the income, while reducing their own costs. In order to make this a viable proposition for the tenant (who is the applicant for this planning application), it is considered necessary to open the facility to the wider area. Therefore, the change of use to serve the wider

community is considered necessary to support the use of serving the users of the sports club. This relationship would not be possible if another location were used for the proposed takeaway.

Policy CS15 – Open Space, Sport and Recreation

Policy CS15 is intended to protect existing recreational facilities from development unless it can be demonstrated that:

i) It is surplus to requirements for its current play and open space function.

If this condition is met, it is then required to meet one of the following tests;

ii) It is not needed for another type of open space, sport or recreation facility; or,

iii) Alternative provision of equivalent quantity, quality and accessibility, or better, can be provided in the local area.

The only element of the clubhouse affected will be the kitchen and serving area. These facilities are ancillary to the main recreational use, and are therefore surplus to requirements and are not needed for alternative recreational uses. Therefore, the application is consistent with the requirements of Policy CS15. Supporting this argument, a consultation response from Sport England advised that the proposed development would affect only ancillary facilities that support the principal use of the site as a playing field, and will not affect the quantity or quality of playing pitches or otherwise adversely affect their use.

Policy CS16 – Green Wedges

Policy CS16 aims to prevent the merging of settlements, and to provide a green lung to urban areas. One of the requirements of Policy CS16 is that land use or development in Green Wedges should retain the open and undeveloped character of the Green Wedge. As the takeaway will not include an extension of the existing built form, being constructed within the existing kitchen, the application is considered to meet this test.

However, Policy CS16 also lists appropriate uses within the Green Wedge as agriculture (including allotments and horticulture- not garden centres); outdoor recreation (where associated buildings are small in scale); forestry; footpaths; bridleways; and, burial grounds. Therefore, the proposed change of use is not consistent with this policy.

Nevertheless, as the application proposes only a change in the character of the facility’s use, intensifying the function of the existing kitchen, but resulting in a minimal increase in vehicular access, and few new externalities, the weight against the application should be mitigated on the basis of a lack of harm.


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

Your Officers have worked with the applicant to ensure that the development has been amended and revised so that it accords with adopted policies and thus the development is in accordance with Policy CS24.

Blaby Local Plan (Delivery) Development Plan Document (2019)

Policy DM2 – Development in the Countryside

Policy DM2 provides criteria for the support of development within the countryside. The site is located within the Green Wedge at Soar Valley South. As the application has been judged not to contradict policy CS16, or to be harmful to the functions of the green wedge, it is required to be assessed against policy DM2. This policy specifies that for the change of use of buildings, the development must be carried out and sustained without the need for complete or substantial rebuilding, alteration and extension, and to be in keeping with the appearance and character of the landscape, development form and buildings. As the application will not involve any works of extension or alteration, it is considered to meet this policy test.

Policy DM2 requires planning proposals to provide a satisfactory relationship with nearby uses that would not be significantly detrimental to the amenities enjoyed by existing or new occupiers including but not limited to, consideration of: i) privacy, light, noise, disturbance and overbearing effect; ii) vibration, emissions, hours of working, vehicular activity.

Subsequent to the submission of an appropriate extraction system, it was confirmed in a consultation response from Blaby District Council’s Environmental Services that the proposed change of use should not have an adverse impact in relation to noise and odour, provided that the system is fitted in accordance with the final documents submitted. It has also been confirmed by the applicant that no changes will be made to the floodlighting scheme to accommodate the change of use.

Policy DM6 – Neighbourhood Parades

Policy DM6 sets out the Neighbourhood Parades across the District and states that these will be maintained, and where possible enhanced for the use of small scale retail uses that support shops or services that are used on a day to day basis by the local community. The policy defines the uses which will be supported in Neighbourhood Parades, including A5 hot food takeaway uses. However, there is no requirement in the policy for a sequential test to be taken to direct uses to these areas. The closest Neighbourhood Parade is Grove Road roundabout, Whetstone, but this is located approximately 110 metres away from the application site.

Policy DM8 – Local Parking and Highway Design Standards

Policy DM8 aims to deliver the transport needs of the District, and to develop the use of more sustainable forms of transport, ensuring that new development is able to provide an appropriate level of parking and servicing provision as set out in the most up-to-date Leicestershire Local Highway Guidance.

With regards to access, a consultation response from Leicestershire County Council’s Highways Department established that despite the sub-standard visibility of the site’s vehicular access, the Local Highway Authority was unable to demonstrate that the proposals would significantly increase the number of cars exiting the facility.

Regarding parking, the agent has indicated that two parking spaces will be provided for the use of the takeaway. Parking standards for takeaways are not stipulated in the Leicestershire Highways Design Guide. However, the existing sports club car park contains approximately 60 spaces and therefore it is likely that the use of just a few spaces for the takeaway would not result in a displacement of vehicles onto the public highway. Furthermore, it is considered that there is likely to be some overlap between users of the sports club and users of the takeaway, and outside of the hours of use of the sports club, more of the car park would be available.

Other Material Considerations


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

Support for Sports Club. Safeguarding

Support for Sports Club

The applicants have argued that as the sports club is unable to make use of the facility due to prohibitive running costs, the club’s management intended to outsource the onsite facility to generate income, while reducing their own costs. This is considered necessary at a time when similar sporting facilities are suffering with lack of demand. In order to make this a viable proposition for the tenant, it is necessary to open the facility to the wider area. Therefore, subsequent to development, the facility will have two uses- to serve the users of the sports club, and to serve the wider community. The latter function requires planning permission, and the applicant argues that this is necessary to support the former. Were the proposed change of use to be refused, this could result in the loss of the catering facilities at the sports club, which would reduce the range of facilities available to users and could reduce its attractiveness as a club.

Safeguarding

The Parish Council has raised issues relating to the safeguarding of children who are using the sports club if people are also using the takeaway business. This is not considered to be a material planning consideration but would be something the sports club, as the landowner, would have a duty to take into consideration. In any case, the plans indicate that takeaway users will have a separate entrance into the building and therefore will not be using the same parts of the building as the sports club, for example, changing room areas.

Overall Planning Balance and Conclusion

The application site includes a portion of the existing clubhouse of the Whetstone Boys Club, and one of its associated car-parks, and is situated within the Soar Valley South Green Wedge between Narborough and Whetstone, as defined by the Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (2013).

It is not considered by your Officers that the proposal will have a negative impact on the streetscene, nor reduce the open and undeveloped character of the Green Wedge. In addition, sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate an acceptable relationship with neighbouring properties. Although the site will have no footpath access, the intended market of the takeaway will prevent both an increase in motor traffic, and a significant impact on the local highway network. Furthermore, it is noted that the proposed hot food takeaway is not defined as a ‘main town centre use’ in the NPPF and so there is no requirement for the use to be directed towards sequentially preferable town centre sites. Regardless, the location is necessary for the scheme, as it is intended that the proposed takeaway use will support the use of existing facilities, ancillary to the operation of the clubhouse. Finally, it is understood that the proposed facility will predominantly be geared towards an online delivery service which would not result in significant numbers of additional members of the public visiting (although this would be difficult to restrict).

The three dimensions of sustainable development have been considered (economic, social and environmental) as set out in the NPPF. On balance, it is considered by your Officers that the proposed development broadly conforms with the Development Plan, and is supported by the relevant policies of the NPPF. In light of the above, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and accordingly it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the stated conditions.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

19/1132/FUL Registered Date Mr Jones, EMH Homes29 November 2019

Erection of 10 affordable dwellings on land adjacent to 7 Cranmer Close

Land Rear Of 7, Cranmer Close, Blaby, Leicestershire

Report author: Tom White Senior Planning OfficerContact Details: Council Offices. Tel 0116 250 3078

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT APPLICATION 19/1132/FUL BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT ENTERING INTO A SECTION 106 AGREEMENT TO ENSURE THE DWELLINGS REMAIN AS AFFORDABLE DWELLINGS;

AND SUBJECT TO THE IMPOSITION OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1 3 year time limit2 Approved plans 3 Materials to be submitted and agreed4 Hard and soft landscaping scheme to be submitted including boundary

treatments 5 Landscaping scheme to be carried out6 Tree root protection (plots 2, 3, 8 & 10)7 Finished floor levels to be agreed8 Parking as shown to be provided and retained9 Foul water drainage details to be submitted10 Surface water drainage details to be submitted11 Management of surface water on site during construction to be submitted and

agreed12 Long-term maintenance plan of the surface water drainage system within the

development to be submitted and approved 13 Construction Method Statement to be submitted and approved in writing by

the District Planning Authority 14 Removal of Permitted Development rights for extensions/additions to any of

the dwellings or any further buildings within the curtilages without prior approval from the District Planning Authority

15 No further openings/windows without prior approval16 Obscurely glazing to plots 1,2,3,4, 7,8,9 & 10 side elevations

NOTES TO COMMITTEE

Relevant Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework (2019)

National Planning Guidance


Policy CS1 – Strategy for locating new developmentPolicy CS2 – Design of new developmentPolicy CS5 – Housing Distribution Policy CS7 – Affordable HousingPolicy CS8 – Mix of Housing Policy CS10 – Transport InfrastructurePolicy CS11 – Infrastructure, Services and Facilities to Support GrowthPolicy CS12 – Planning Obligations and Developer ContributionsPolicy CS15 – Open space, sport and recreation Policy CS19 – Bio-diversity and geo-diversityPolicy CS21 – Climate changePolicy CS22 – Flood risk managementPolicy CS24 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development

Blaby District Local Plan (Delivery) Development Plan Document (February 2019)

Policy DM1 - Development within the settlement boundariesPolicy DM8 - Local parking and highways design standards

Blaby Neighbourhood Plan 2018

Policy BNP1 – Character and EnvironmentPolicy BNP9 – Settlement BoundaryPolicy BNP6 – Reserve Site Allocations

Consultations

Blaby District Council, Environmental Health – Has no objections subject to the imposition of conditions.

Blaby District Council, Housing Officer – Has commented as follows:

“The Housing Services department (which includes the Housing strategy Team and the Homelessness prevention Team) is very much supportive of the application. Firstly, we are currently seeing an unprecedented number of families in our priority need category on our housing list, predominantly made up of homeless households.

As a snapshot today (06/03/2020) the priority need list is made up of 68 households – when we break this down this includes 75 children who have no secure accommodation with many staying in Bed and Breakfast accommodation. Last year we were averaging around 30 families in priority need so this is an increase of 100%. I have included, for context, the qualifying criteria for households in order to be placed in the priority need banding at the end of this email. I would appreciate if this could be

included as part of my response in your report so that the true nature of what being in Priority Band means to the families involved.

Secondly, in terms of the total number of households requiring housing within the district of Blaby – this currently stands (as of today) at 738 households. Of these 738, 68 as mentioned previously are in ‘Priority Need’, 90 Households in ‘High Band’ and 318 in Medium band totalling 408 households with significant housing issues and requiring sustainable housing. This significant need is compounded by the fact that Blaby District has a wholly unaffordable Market Housing and Private Rented sector for those on medium to low incomes. Blaby has been included in a list of local authorities who are suffering this problem and have been awarded extra funding from Central Govt. for the procurement of Social Rented homes. This scheme will be entirely ‘Social Rented’ accommodation.

Lastly the housing mix of the scheme has been formed in conjunction with the localauthority to actively reflect the need of all groups and includes housing for older people, which is unusual on a scheme of this size and shows the commitment of EMH homes to deliver what is needed in our communities”.

Blaby District Council Neighbourhood Services – Has no objections and has commented as follows:

“As per previous replies there does not seem any real problems with this from our point of view, just so long as the road is up to the required standards to support our LGV Refuse/Recycling vehicles allowing access to the properties to service the bins”

Blaby District Council Planning Policy – Has commented as follows:

“Planning policy comments relating to the proposed development were submitted on 18 September 2019. They state that the proposal is considered to be contrary to Local Plan Core Strategy Policy CS15 – Open space, sport and recreation, as the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the existing open space is:

(i) Surplus to requirements for its current play and open space function; and

(ii) Needed for another type of open space, sport and recreation facility; or

(ii) Alternative provision of equivalent quantity, quality and accessibility, or better, can be provided in the local area.

The applicant submitted a Public Open Space Statement (dated 24 December 2019) to help demonstrate that their proposal complies with the above policy. Having reviewed the submitted statement it is

considered that insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate compliance with Policy CS15.

The Statement’s only assessment of the open space being surplus to requirements is based on anecdotal evidence of a lack of public use, during site visits undertaken as part of the wider planning application analysis of the site.

The review of other open spaces within Blaby Parish is also limited to a list of sites and an accompanying map of their respective locations. The Statement also comments that the open space does not provide any dedicated children’s play equipment and that it has no prescribed classification.

As stated within the previous planning policy comments, Blaby has an identified shortage within the parish of informal open space. This site contributes to that provision and no evidence has been provided to justify its loss.

Without a more detailed assessment of the open space’s usage, which takes into account existing provision of other informal public open space (within 800 metres), the proposed development of the site remains contrary to Local Plan Core Strategy Policy CS15.”

Blaby Parish Council – Objects for the following reasons:

“As previously stated, Blaby Parish Council strongly object to this planning application as they feel this is going against the District Council’s health and wellbeing policy.

This plan will also present the following issues:

Excess traffic Elderly/disabled residents living in the vicinity Exceeded housing numbers by 88 already The only green space in south west of Blaby for children to play on Concern for the trees and hedgerows. Are there any preservation

orders on the mature trees? Blaby Parish Council would be interested in purchasing this land to

keep it as an open green space for all the local community.

Blaby Parish Council would like to add the following comments:-

The footpath outside plots 1, 2 & 3 does not appear to be compliant to DDA standards as it is not wide enough; there are concerns who would maintain this footpath as the size is not up to standard.

The open space service strip pathway is unsuitable as it doesn’t appear to be wide enough and members of the public would struggle to get a pushchair / wheelchair along it.

The new public open space report says two visits were carried out, but these were completed during the winter where not as many people would have been using the area.

The Review of open spaces report states there are 16 identified open spaces within Blaby, but the following sites are not public open space as they are membership clubs:-

Blaby Bowling Club

Blaby Victoria Tennis Club Vipers Rugby Football Club Leicester Lions Rugby Football Club

Blaby Golf Centre

The following sites are not suitable for open play areas:-

Allotments, Enderby Road War Memorial Open Space at Maple Avenue / Walnut Way Open Space at Cedar Road / The Southway Open Space at Lincoln Drive / The Southway Open Field(s) adjacent to Grove Road / A426 (Blaby Bypass)

When this planning application is being considered by Blaby District Council I would like to request that the Chairman of Blaby Parish Council, Cllr. Mr Graham Harding is allocated a time slot to speak on behalf of the Parish Council.”

Central Networks - no comments received.

Leicestershire County Council Ecology – Have raised no objections to the 1.8 metre buffer from the development to the important hedgerow.

Leicestershire County Council Highway Authority – Has raised concerns over the layout of parking spaces for plot 9 and the adoption over the road.

“The proposed road layout does not conform to an acceptable standard for adoption and therefore it will not be considered for adoption and future maintenance by the Local Highway Authority. For the roads to be considered for adoption the service margin fronting plots 1,2 and 3, requires amending to a 2m footway to ensure footway continuity is maintained within the development.

The parking bays to Plot 9 are also not in an ideal location. Experience has shown this type of parking arrangement leads for inconsiderate parking at junctions and on footways. Therefore, the LHA would advise the Applicant the layout is revised to prevent future parking issues”.

Leicestershire County Council Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) – Has no objections but has commented as follows:

“The previous LLFA comments advised that the following information would be required in order to provide a substantive response: Evidence of consultation with Severn Trent Water (STW) regarding the proposed connection to the existing surface water sewer.

Correspondence with STW has been provided and demonstrates that discharging surface water into the existing surface water sewer is acceptable. Leicestershire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) advises the Local Planning Authority (LPA) that the proposals are considered acceptable to the LLFA and we advise the following planning conditions be attached to any permission granted.”

Severn Trent Water – Has no objections to this proposal.

University Hospitals Leicester – Requests a developer contribution of £5,400.00 to go towards the gap in the funding created by each potential patient from this development.


46 letters of objection have been received in summary raising the following issues:

Lack of time to submit an objection Over intensification of the site Loss of trees and natural habitat Loss of recreational space Negative impact on the wellbeing of the local residents Loss of community dog walking area Traffic Disturbances/ Increase in Traffic Construction Disturbances Impact upon neighbouring properties Contrary to Policy CS15 Possible development into the Green Wedge Destruction of wildlife habitats Higher levels of pollution Lack of amenities/ strain on local amenities Devaluing the properties to the area Housing numbers have already been reached New residents could increase crime and disturbance to the area Poor communication with neighbouring residents Development on Greenbelt Loss of spaces for children to play on Would detract people from going outside Removal of natural drainage Lack of infrastructure to deal with the development No play area within the proposed scheme

Overlooking from proposed houses onto neighbouring properties Closure of the public footpath during construction Significant distance from nearest open space Loss of greenfield site Plot 7/8 parking is dangerous to pedestrians Poor submitted public space statement Alternative open spaces too dangerous to get to for public

Relevant History

None

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Site

The application site is approximately 0.27 ha in size and it is located to the south western edge of the built-up area of Blaby. The site currently is an area of open space and is located adjacent to the green wedge which is located due west.

The site is constrained to the north and east by residential properties of Grove Road which are predominantly residential properties of large detached nature with a public footpath that connects Grove Road to the application site.

To the south are also residential properties of Cranmer Close which vary in housing mix with bungalows and terraced properties of a similar design.

The application site itself is an open space which includes a footpath running through the site to link the cul de sac of Cranmer Close to Grove Road. To the western boundary of the site is a hedgerow which has been identified as being a local wildlife site. The site is bounded by mature vegetation to the north, east and western boundaries.

The Proposal

The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 10 dwellings with associated parking and access from Cranmer Close. The 10 dwellings would all be social rented properties.

As part of the application, a boundary fence would be erected to separate the local wildlife site of the western boundary by approximately 1.8 metres.

The dwellings would consist of 4 blocks of two storey semi detached properties of matching design constructed of a mix of brick and render. The proposal also includes the provision of a bungalow and a two storey detached property.

Amended plans were received altering the location of plots 7 & 8 to move the parking spaces along with the erection of a fence running parallel with the western boundary to retain a 2 metre wide wildlife corridor.

Planning Considerations

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

The National Planning Policy Framework (2019) establishes the key principles for proactively delivering sustainable development through the development plan system and the determination of planning applications. The emphasis is that development plans allow for development in sustainable locations and that new development is of good design quality.

National Planning Policy Framework

The National Planning Policy Framework establishes the key principles for proactively delivering sustainable development through the development plan system and the determination of planning applications. It sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. At a very high level, the objective of sustainable development can be summarised as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways (so that opportunities can be taken to secure net gains across each of the different objectives). These objectives are:

An economic objectiveA social objectiveAn environmental objective

For decision-taking this means:

Approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date developmentplan without delay; or

where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies whichare most important for determining the application are out-of-date, grantingpermission unless:

i. The application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or

ii. Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.


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

Policy CS1 – Strategy for Locating New Development

Policy CS1 seeks to focus new development in the most sustainable locations in the District, primarily within and adjoining the Principal Urban Area (PUA) of Leicester (Glenfield, Kirby Muxloe, Leicester Forest East, Braunstone Town and Glen Parva).

Policy CS1 goes on to state that outside of the PUA, development will be focussed within and adjoining Blaby (the District’s only settlement with a town centre) and the Larger Central Villages (ie, Enderby, Narborough, Whetstone and Countesthorpe).

Policy CS1 also indicates that ‘in each settlement, encouragement will be given to the use of previously developed land and underused land and buildings’. The site would consist of 10 affordable dwellings being built on an area identified as open space within the settlement boundary of Blaby.


Policy CS2 seeks to ensure that a high quality environment is achieved in all new development proposals, respecting distinctive local character and providing opportunities to enhance the natural and historic environment. The strategic objectives of this Policy seek to improve the design quality of all new developments in the District including the need to design out crime.

Policy CS5 – Housing Distribution

This Policy seeks to ensure that new development is focussed in the most appropriate locations, where housing is distributed by settlement hierarchy. As stated above, Policy CS1 states that after the PUA, most new development will be focussed within and adjoining Blaby (the District’s only settlement with a town centre) and the Larger Central Villages (ie, Enderby, Narborough, Whetstone and Countesthorpe).

In terms of the land supply position, monitoring of the Core Strategy requirements shows at April 2019 the minimum requirements, as set out in the Core Strategy, for Blaby Parish (and for the Non-PUA) have already been exceeded. Monitoring data shows that total completions and commitments for Blaby Parish have been exceeded by 88 dwellings.

Policy CS7 – Affordable Housing

Policy CS7’s strategic objective is to ensure that new housing developments provide the appropriate quantity and mix of housing for the District’s current and future needs. Policy CS7 states that where financially viable, new housing developments of

15 or more dwellings will provide a minimum of 25% of the total number of dwellings as affordable housing in order to meet those needs. Notwithstanding the proposal not requiring to provide any affordable housing, this is a scheme for 10 dwellings which would be 100% affordable and as such, would comply with this policy.

Policy CS8 – Mix of Housing

Like Policy CS7, Policy CS8’s strategic objective is to ensure that new housing developments provide the appropriate quantity and mix of housing for the District’s current and future needs. Policy CS8 states that residential proposals for developments of 10 or more dwellings should provide an appropriate mix of housing types, tenures and sizes to meet those needs. Blaby District Council’s Housing Strategy Officers have commented on the proposal and this is set out further into the report.

Policy CS10 – Transport Infrastructure

Policy CS10 seeks to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to mitigate the transport impacts of new development. This Policy seeks to encourage the use of more sustainable forms of transport (including walking, cycling and public transport).

Policy CS11 – Infrastructure, Services and Facilities to Support Growth

Policy CS11 seeks to ensure that all new development is supported by good access to infrastructure, services and facilities and to maximise sport and recreation opportunities in order to meet the growing needs of the District’s population.

Policy CS12 – Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions

Policy CS12 seeks to ensure that the requirements for infrastructure, services and facilities arising from any development will be sought in accordance with the Council’s latest Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions SPD. This development for less than 11 dwellings does not meet the threshold for developer contributions. This is set out further into the report.

Policy CS15- Open space, sport and recreation

This Policy states that existing open space, sport and recreation facilities will be protected, and where possible enhanced. Where development is proposed on existing open space, sport and recreation facilities, land should not be released, either in total or in part unless it can be demonstrated that:

(i) It is surplus to requirements for its current play and open space function; and

(ii) It is not needed for another type of open space, sport and recreation facility; or,

(iii) Alternative provision of equivalent quantity, quality and accessibility, or better, can be provided in the local area.

The area is a defined open space so Policy CS15 does apply to this site. The proposal would result in the loss of the entire open space for 10 affordable dwellings.

The site is classified as an area of open space and as such, has been assessed further within the report.

Policy CS19 – Bio-diversity and geo-diversity

This Policy seeks to maintain / extend networks of natural habitats to link sites of biodiversity importance by avoiding or repairing the fragmentation and isolation of natural habitats. These networks should be protected from development. Where development in these areas cannot be avoided, the networks of natural habitats should be strengthened by or integrated within the development. The Council recognises that networks cross Local Authority boundaries, so will work with partners to ensure their maintenance and enhancement. There is an important hedgerow as located to the north west boundary of the site, and is discussed in more detail within this report.


This Policy seeks to support new development which mitigates and adapts to climate change. New development should be focussed in the most sustainable locations in accordance with Policies CS1 and CS5 and use sustainable design principles which reduce energy demand and increase efficiency.


This Policy seeks to ensure that all new development minimises flood risk vulnerability, providing resilience to flooding by directing new development to locations at the lowest risk of flooding within the District, using sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and managing surface water run off. The development is not located within a flood zone and Leicestershire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority has not objected to the proposal subject to an appropriate condition regarding surface water drainage.


Policy CS24 requires that when considering development proposals, Blaby District Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development and planning applications that accord with the policies in the Local Plan Core Strategy will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Blaby District Local Plan Delivery DPD (2019)

The Delivery DPD was adopted on 4th February 2019 and full weight can be given to its policies. It sits alongside the Core Strategy to form part of the Development Plan for the District. These documents replace the Blaby Local Plan 1999. The following Policies are relevant to this application;

Policy – DM1 Development with the Settlement Boundaries

This policy relates to development within the Settlement Boundaries and states that development proposals consistent with other policies of the Local Plan will be supported provided the development is compliant with the criteria relating to design considerations and the relationship with other nearby uses.

Policy - DM8 Local Parking & Highway Design Standards

This Policy requires that new development will be required to provide an appropriate level of parking and servicing provision as set out in the most up-to-date Leicestershire Local Highway Guidance. The development will not conform to Highway standards as the proposed pavement would not conform to Highways standards. The applicant has stated that the new road accessing the site would not be adopted by LCC Highways.

The Blaby Neighbourhood Plan (2018)

The Blaby Neighbourhood Plan was adopted in February 2018. The Plan is now part of the statutory development plan for the District and full weight is given to its Policies. The Plan sets out Blaby’s identified housing need, recognising that the minimum requirement (as set out under Policy CS5 of the adopted Core Strategy), has been met and exceeded and it does not set out any allocated housing sites.

Notwithstanding this, the Plan recognises that there may be risk from non completions or circumstantial change within the plan period which requires the allocation of reserve housing sites. The application site does not form one of the Plan’s two allocated Reserve Sites.

Policy BNP1 of the Neighbourhood Plan indicates that all new development shall create a sense of place appropriate to its location (using the identified character Maps) by reflecting the principal characteristics of adjacent areas in terms of scale, layout and materials. The site falls within Character Area C: Suburban residential.

Housing Mix and Affordable, Housing Supplementary Planning, Document2013

This document outlines Blaby District Council’s strategy for securing relevant and appropriate housing in terms of mix and affordable provision.


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

The impact on residential amenity The impact on the character and appearance of the area

Loss of Open Space Parking provision and Highways safety Housing mix and affordability Ecology Developer contributions and Section 106 Agreements

The impact on residential amenity

Policy DM1of the Delivery DPD supports new development within settlement boundaries where proposals are consistent with certain criteria. This includes requirements for new development to have satisfactory relationships with nearby uses that would not be significantly detrimental to the amenities enjoyed by the existing or new occupiers, including but not limited to, considerations of privacy, light, noise disturbance and overbearing effect.

The neighbouring properties to the proposal would be no’s 6,7 and 9 Cranmer Close to the south east, Blue Haze to the east and nos 71, 73, 75 & 77 Grove Road to the north.

Plot 1 would be sited approximately 6 metres from the neighbouring property of no 6 Cranmer Close and is built on a slightly forward building line. There is a proposed first floor window which would serve the proposed bathroom which will be conditioned to remain obscurely glazed.

Plot 4 is proposed to border the neighbouring residential properties of nos 7 & 9 Cranmer Close to the south east. Proposed Plot 4 would be built on a oblique angle to the neighbouring properties of nos 7 & 9 Cranmer Close and as such, whose rear garden would be visible from the first floor window of plot 4. However this window is serving the first floor bathroom which will be conditioned to be obscurely glazed as well.

Plots 4,5,6,7 & 8 would back onto the rear garden of Blue Haze which is a large two storey detached residential property to the east of the application site. The proposed plots would have a separation distance of approximately 40 metres to Blue Haze itself. Further to this, there is adequate screening provided by mature vegetation on the boundary line which is within the control of Blue Haze.

Plots 9 & 10 back onto the neighbouring properties of 71, 73 & 75 Grove Road and Plot 8 borders No 77 Grove Road, Blaby. Due to the deep gardens to the nos 71, 73,74 & 77 Grove Road, there would be a separation distance of approximately 40 metres from the proposal scheme and these properties. There is also mature vegetation along the boundary.

Due to the adequate siting, separation distance and screening provided from boundary vegetation, there would be no adverse impacts caused to the neighbouring residential amenities. Conditions restricting further openings or extensions and additions, along with the provision of obscure glazing to certain sensitive elevations are considered necessary and appropriate in order to reduce any unacceptable impact on privacy of neighbouring occupiers.

The impact on the character and appearance of the area

Policies DM1 of the Delivery DPD and CS2 of the Core Strategy require new development to respect local character and have a satisfactory layout, design and external appearance.

The proposal seeks to include a new access from Cranmer Close which would seek to erect 10 dwellings on an area designated as public open space. As such, the area is characterised by open green land with a few mature trees sited throughout the open space. The wider area consists of a 1970’s residential estate of Cranmer Close located to the south which is characterised by a mixture of bungalows and two storey terraced properties and semi detached properties. There have been amended plans received throughout the course of the application altering the layout to include a wildlife corridor of approximately 2 metres and to relocate plots 7 & 8 to separate the parking spaces. The proposed design and mix of render and brick for the dwellings would integrate with the existing residential estate. The site would also retain the public footpath and link this to the proposed pavement. The loss of the green open space would harm the character of the area, however by virtue of the appropriate layout, design and the siting of the development within the settlement boundary of Blaby, it is considered that the proposal would integrate well with the existing residential estate and wouldn’t significantly harm the character of the area.

Loss of Open Space

Policy CS15 is of importance for the development as the application site is identified as an area of open space. The Policy seeks to ensure that all residents have access to high quality, accessible open space, sport and recreation facilities. As the proposal would be removing the open space in its entirety for 10 dwellings, the proposal would be contrary to Policy CS15. The applicant submitted a Public Open Space Statement (dated 24 December 2019) to help demonstrate that their proposal complies with Policy CS15. However it was considered that insufficient evidence was provided within the submitted statement to demonstrate compliance with Policy CS15. Further to this, Blaby has a shortage within the parish of informal open space. This site contributes to the provision of open space where the nearest alternative informal open space is approximately 800 metres away from the site. As such the proposed development of the site is contrary to Local Plan Core Strategy Policy CS15.

Parking provision and Highways safety

Policy DM8 of the Delivery DPD requires new development will provide an appropriate level of parking and not harm highway and pedestrian safety.

Several letters from residents raised issues of local parking/traffic problems in the immediate area, exacerbated by the traffic associated with the nearby area

The scheme proposes 2 off street car parking spaces for each dwelling. This level of car parking is considered acceptable as it conforms to Highways Standing Advice. However Highways have stated that the road is not adoptable as the proposed pavement on the western side of the highway does not meet Highways standards of

at least 2 metres. Furthermore, the Highways department has specified that the tree roots to the western boundary will grow underneath the highway itself and as such, could not be adopted by the LCC Highways department. The applicant has stated that they will maintain the highway as a result of this.

The Highways department have raised concerns over the visibility splays from plots 1 & 4 from Cranmer Close. However this land is owned by the applicant and can maintain any vegetation/ boundary treatment that may impact the future visibility splay to plots 1 & 4. The site layout has also been addressed with amended plans altering the layout to parking spaces for plot 9 which is considered to have addressed the issue. LCC Highways have been consulted but have not given up to date consultation response.

Housing mix and affordability

Blaby District Council’s Housing Strategy Officers have commented on the proposed scheme. They have supported the application on the basis that the District has an essential need for affordable properties, especially those of social rent status. The District currently has 68 households in ‘Priority Need’, 90 Households in ‘High Band’ and 318 in Medium band totalling 408 households with significant housing issues that require sustainable housing. This significant need is compounded by the fact that Blaby District has a wholly unaffordable Market Housing and Private Rented sector for those on medium to low incomes. Blaby has been included in a list of local authorities who are suffering this problem and have been awarded extra funding for the procurement of social rented housing as a result of this.

The Housing Strategy Officers specify that the housing mix for the proposal, at 4 blocks of two bed properties, a two bed bungalow and a three bed detached property is acceptable for the size of the scheme and integrates in with the neighbouring Cranmer Close estate.

Ecology

Policy CS19 seeks to protect the Districts natural environment. There is a recorded local wildlife site to the western boundary and as a result the LCC Ecology team has been consulted as part of the application.

LCC Ecology initially objected to the application due to the initial proposed loss of the hedgerow. However amended plans were received showing the retention of the hedgerow and a gap of approximately 2 metres. LCC Ecology has welcomed the retention of the hedgerow subject to a buffer zone for the adequate protection of the wildlife site. LCC Ecology have accepted a buffer of 1.8metres to2 metres from the development to the important hedgerow. As such, it is considered that the proposal would conform to Policy CS19 of the Blaby District Councils Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2013.

Developer contributions and Section 106 Agreements

Policy CS12 seeks to ensure that the requirements for infrastructure, services and facilities arising from any development will be sought in accordance with Blaby District Council’s Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Guidance (2010). This document sets the threshold for provision of such contributions as housing developments of more than 10 dwellings.

This application is for 10 affordable dwellings and as such, would not meet the threshold for developer contributions. A request for funding towards education was subsequently received from Leicestershire County Council. University Hospitals of Leicester also made a request for contributions towards healthcare. However, the application is for 10 dwellings and the applicant is therefore not required or obligated to meet these contributions.

However and as discussed earlier in this Report, the loss of this open space is contrary to adopted policies of the Development Plan, but your Officers consider that that conflict with policy is outweighed by the critical need for additional affordable dwellings to be provided within the District. Accordingly, your Officers consider that in order to recommend this application favourably there needs to be a mechanism put in place to ensure that the dwellings to be provided are genuinely “affordable units” and should remain so thereafter. That mechanism is proposed to be a Section 106 Agreement with the applicants/developer to ensure that the dwellings are constructed as affordable units.

Other matters

Objections were received from the public consultation. Most of the objections were received in regards to the loss of the public open space and wildlife site along with the associated impacts that will arise from this such as:

Loss of trees and natural habitat Loss of recreational space Contrary to Policy CS15 Destruction of wildlife habitats Higher levels of pollution Loss of community dog walking area Loss of spaces for children to play on Would detract people from going outside Removal of natural drainage Significant distance from nearest open space Poor submitted public space statement Alternative open spaces too dangerous to get to for public Loss of greenfield site No play area within the proposed scheme Negative impact on the wellbeing of the local residents

The above objections are linked to Policy CS15 of the Blaby Local Plan Core strategy) 2013 which has been assessed above.

Other concerns were raised in regards to Traffic Disturbances/ Increase in Traffic and Construction Disturbances. A condition will be imposed to finalise details of the construction methodology to ensure that minimal disturbances are caused to the local residents.

Further to this, issues were raised from local residents in regards to the possibility that the application would lead to further development within the neighbouring Green Wedge. As Members are aware we can only determine the application that is before us at the current time and any further development proposed would need to be assessed via a separate planning application on its own merits. Conclusion and Planning Balance

In determining planning applications, the District Planning Authority must determine applications in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The application proposes the provision of 10 dwellings within the settlement boundary of Blaby where such development will be supported subject to it being consistent with the Policies of the Development Plan. It is acknowledged that Blaby Parish has met and exceeded its minimum housing targets. However, it is also recognised that these are minimum targets and the provision of 10 additional units would not undermine the Development Plan strategy.

It is acknowledged that the proposal would remove an area of informal open space thus being contrary to Policy CS15. This being said, the proposal would be marketed for social rent for which there is a strong need in the District.

Further to this, the open space is not of the highest quality with no play equipment and only a small number of mature trees. This is a case where a delicate planning balance is needed and your Officers have undertaken such a balancing exercise, and whilst the loss of the open space is regrettable your Officers consider that the pressing need for affordable housing of a social rented nature outweighs the loss of the informal open space and wildlife site. The proposal also seeks to mitigate the harm to the wildlife site by incorporating a 2 metre buffer zone which it is also accepted by the County Ecologist at this location. LCC Highways have raised concerns with the site layout for parking of plot 9 and also stating that the highway cannot be adopted. However it is acknowledged that the parking for plot 9 has been amended with the applicant confirming that they will maintain the highway.

It is for these reasons that your Officers are of the view that the proposal (in its revised form) is acceptable and accordingly it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the applicants entering into the required Section 106 legal Agreement and subject to the imposition of the stated conditions.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

20/0178/FUL Registered Date Interserve Construction Ltd 2 March 2020

Erection of single storey school building as an extension to existing school (Countesthorpe Leysland Community College) and demolition of existing school building (Leysland High School) (revised scheme).

Countesthorpe Leysland Community College, Winchester Road, Countesthorpe

Report Author: Kristy Ingles, Development Services Manager

Contact Details: Council Offices. Tel: 0116 272 7705

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT APPLICATION 20/0178/FUL BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE IMPOSITION OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. 3 year time limit2. Approved plans3. Materials in accordance with submitted details4. Schedule for the implementation of approved landscaping to be submitted and

agreed5. Landscaping scheme to be implemented 6. Those trees to be retained to be protected during construction / demolition.7. Former Leysland building to be demolished and site cleared of all debris

within 12 months of occupation of the new building and subsequently soft landscaped.

8. Prior to demolition of former Leysland building, programme of archaeological recording to the undertaken.

9. Door in south western elevation to be obscure glazed and to be kept shut except in an emergency or for maintenance

10. External lighting to be installed and maintained in accordance with submitted details and all external lighting on elevations of building facing towards The Drive to be turned off between 22:00 and 06:30.

11. Construction Management Statements to be submitted, agreed and implemented.

12. Details of parking provision during construction to be implemented.13. Details of surface water drainage during construction to be submitted, agreed

and implemented.14. Prior to first occupation, surface water drainage to be provided in accordance

with the submitted details.15. Details of long-term maintenance of the surface water drainage system to be

submitted, agreed and implemented.16. Prior to first occupation, mitigation in the noise report to be implemented.17. Before occupation, car parking to be provided in accordance with submitted

details.

NOTES TO COMMITTEE

Relevant Planning Policy & Legislation

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019)

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)


Policy CS1 – Strategy for Locating New DevelopmentPolicy CS2 – Design of New DevelopmentPolicy CS11 – Infrastructure, Services and Facilities to Support GrowthPolicy CS14 – Green InfrastructurePolicy CS19 – Bio Diversity and Geo DiversityPolicy CS20 – Historic Environment and CulturePolicy CS21 – Climate ChangePolicy CS22 – Flood Risk ManagementPolicy CS24 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development


Policy DM1 – Development within the Settlement BoundariesPolicy DM8 – Local Parking & Highway Design StandardsPolicy DM12 – Designated and Non-Designated Heritage Assets

Leicestershire Highways Design Guidance

Reference material

The Buildings of England. Leicestershire and Rutland Nikolaus Pevsner (1960)

England's Schools: History, architecture and adaptation Elain Harwood (2010)


Blaby District Council, Environmental Services has no objections subject to conditions in relation to drainage, construction site management including construction noise and details of external lighting.

Countesthorpe Parish Council – on initial consultation - comments that the concerns regarding the previous application appear to mainly have been addressed. Construction traffic must be carefully managed for safety reasons.

Countesthorpe Parish Council – on 1st reconsultation – makes the following comments:

“We have concerns regarding students and staff walking through the construction area.

We would expect the school Senior Leadership Team to minimise movement between the two buildings during the construction period.

We would like to see a schedule of works before a decision is made on the application.

We consider parking shown on the plans as inadequate and is likely to cause overflow of contractor and staff parking on the highway, which is already problematic.

There is no reference to student drop-off and pick-up. There must be sufficient dedicated parking in place before construction

begins. Construction traffic should have own access to and egress from the site to a

dedicated compound. Deliveries to the site should be outside of school hours”.

Countesthorpe Parish Council – on 2nd reconsultation – comments that “Countesthorpe Parish Council would like to see a traffic management plan clearly showing access and egress point as previously asked for”.

Leicestershire County Council, Archaeology advises that “the archaeological implications of the proposed development therefore cannot be adequately assessed on the basis of the currently available information… The applicant should make provision for:1. A historic building appraisal and impact assessment of the Leysland High

School building2. A field evaluation by trial trenching, to identify and locate any archaeological

remains of significance, and propose suitable treatment to avoid or minimise damage by the development. Further design, civil engineering or archaeological work may then be necessary to achieve this.

This information should be submitted to the planning authority before any decision on the planning application is taken, so that an informed decision can be made, and the application refused or modified in the light of the results as appropriate..”.

Leicestershire County Council, Archaeology – on reconsultation – advises that no further below ground archaeological investigation will be required in advance of building works for the new building. Concerns about the impact on the setting of heritage assets are raised and the applicant’s assessment. It is advised that the Council seeks advice from our conservation and historic building advisor. Also states that a scheme which seeks to retain and improve the existing Leysland High School building would be preferred. However, if the planning authority is minded to approve plans for its demolition, then a condition is recommended to secure a programme of historic building recording in advance of demolition, to record and advance the understanding of the significance of the heritage asset that is to be lost, in a manner that is proportionate to its importance.

Leicestershire County Council, Ecology comments:

The Ecology report does not mention the demolition of the Leysland building in the development proposals, however the buildings were considered to be of

low suitability for roosting bats. Therefore additional surveys will not be required.

No objections to the development which is on amenity grassland and no requirements for a planning condition.

Although the site is within a Swift Alert Area, the new buildings are not suitable for Swift nest boxes.

Leicestershire County Council, Education fully supports the application and comments:

“This new, high quality facility will enable the school buildings to be much closer together ensuring a smoother day to day operation and increasing safeguarding. Students will be able to move between classrooms a lot quicker, thus increasing time within the classrooms and making effective use of each study period. A much improved environment will enhance the learning experience of local children, improving outcomes.

The new building would also enable the school to ensure that new pupil places will be available for existing and future communities”.

Leicestershire County Council, Highways advises “that, in its view, the impacts of the development on highway safety would not be unacceptable, and when considered cumulatively with other developments, the impacts on the road network would not be severe. Based on the information provided, the development therefore does not conflict with paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), subject to the conditions and/or planning obligations outlined in this report”.

Leicestershire County Council, Highways (on reconsultation) advises that “following a request from the LPA, the LHA has now been asked to review the loss of a turning head from the adjacent private road to the college as part of the proposals. The LHA has considered the loss of the turning head from The Drive. The LHA would normally consider objection to the loss of infrastructure which allows vehicles to turn and exit cul-de-sac roads in a forward gear, even if the road in question is private and not part of the adopted highway. However, in this case, the length of The Drive is such that vehicles would be likely to perform manoeuvres on the private road which would allow them to rejoin Cosby Road in a forward gear, rather than reversing a potentially long distance”.

Leicestershire County Council, Lead Local Flood Authority – on first consultation - advised that the application documents as submitted were insufficient for the LLFA to provide a substantive response at that stage.

Leicestershire County Council, Lead Local Flood Authority – on reconsultation following submission of flood risk assessment and drainage details – comments:

“The site is located within Flood Zone 1 being at low risk of fluvial flooding. The site is at a low to medium risk of surface water flooding. The planning application comprises the demolition of an existing building and

the erection of a new building. The developable area will be 0.46 ha in size and will be positively drained to a 220m³ capacity below ground attenuation

tank. The wider site is known to drain to an existing on-site sewer network before discharging into a watercourse to the west of the site. It is proposed that the surface water from the new development will drain from the attenuation tank and into the sewer network and discharge into the watercourse at a rate of 5l/s. An extra 30m³ of storage for the 100 year flood event is provided by a landscaped hollow and the Flood Routing Plan shows exceedance flows to be directed away from the buildings and into the landscaped areas.

Leicestershire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) advises the Local Planning Authority (LPA) that the proposals are considered acceptable to the LLFA”, subject to the imposition of conditions.

Leicestershire County Council, Principal Historic Buildings Officer advises:

“Thank you for requesting my observations in respect of the above application which is a revised application for a similar development submitted last year.

This response will explain why I consider that the reason for refusal of the previous application has not been addressed satisfactorily. It is clear that the resubmitted proposal will still result in less than substantial harm to the listed Cottage Homes and the non-designated College. Total loss of significance would occur in respect of the later school building to be demolished.

I remain of the opinion that the harm has not been justified or that the development cannot be reasonably accommodated elsewhere in the extensive school grounds where it would not be contrary to the overarching statutory conservation obligation. The majority of my original consultation response of 13 August 2019 and additional observations, mainly relating to the non-designated heritage assets, of 21 August 2019 remain relevant.

Legislation and PolicyI believe that relevant conservation legislation, National Planning Policy, recent legal rulings or appeal decisions have not changed materially since the original application was determined.

It is clear from legislation, national planning policy directives and Historic England guidance that the setting of heritage assets is often an important factor in their special interest or significance and whilst it is frequently considered in visual terms setting can also encompass the environment in which a place or building is experienced, their local context, embracing present and past relationships to the adjacent land.

Listed buildings, unlike perhaps some other forms of heritage assets, benefit from an overarching legislative protection which extends to their setting and must be given great weight in the planning decision making process. Legal Judgements, including the ‘Forge Field’ and ‘Forest of Dean’ cases, confirm that it normally means, when undertaking an ‘ordinary’ planning balancing exercise for example, there is a presumption in favour of resisting development that causes harm, even where that harm is adjudged to be ‘less than substantial’ under paragraph 196 of the NPPF.

Only in exceptional cases the presumption may be overridden in favour of development which is desirable on the ground of some other public interest.

I noted in my original response that Historic England’s online Heritage Protection Guide, in the Decision-Making Principles for Listed Building and Other Consents section, includes this useful summary:-

‘When making a decision on all listed building consent applications or any decision on a planning application for development that affects a listed building or its setting, a local planning authority must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Preservation in this context means not harming the interest in the building, as opposed to keeping it utterly unchanged.

This obligation, found in sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, applies to all decisions concerning listed buildings. The recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of Barnwell vs East Northamptonshire DC 2014 made it clear that in enacting section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Parliament’s intention was that ‘decision makers should give “considerable importance and weight” to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings’ when carrying out the balancing exercise'.

Decision-making policies in the NPPF and in the local development plan are also to be applied, but they cannot directly conflict with or avoid the obligatory consideration in these statutory provisions’.

Applicants and developers often ignore this fundamental obligation but decision makers cannot. This can lead to abortive work and often a Planning Appeal but should this be the next step in this case I am confident, given recent decisions in your District and elsewhere including the Whetstone Grange application where the setting of a listed buildings was adjudged to be of sufficient importance to warrant protection despite the potential for many new affordable homes, that an Inspector will be duty bound to give great weight to the protection of the historic environment.

Sustainable development, as enshrined in the NPPF, gives rise to a need to protect the historic environment, particularly where it includes a strong statutory obligation or a specific policy which directs a development should be resisted. Specific relevant NPPF policies in this case include those in paragraphs 189, 194 and 196 for the listed buildings and 189 and 197 in respect of the non-designated heritage assets.

Heritage AssetsWork undertaken in respect of the previous proposal established that the significance of several listed buildings and two non-designated heritage assets is likely to be indirectly or directly affected by development within the school grounds.

Countesthorpe Cottage Homes is an important philanthropic development dating from 1884 which currently includes 13 statutorily listed buildings or designated heritage assets. It is not disputed that part of the application land was an integral part of the original Cottage Homes complex. From a visual perspective the individual

dwellings were arranged along a drive to face the land, in a carefully planned composition that resembles a traditional village green. The close functional association between part of the application site and Cottage Homes increases its historic significance and sensitivity.

Cartographic and photographic evidence suggests that, as is the case today, tree planting partially restricted views to and from the dwellings but the open land contributed positively to a rural outlook which, together with the design of the buildings, offered a marked, probably intended, contrast to the harsh urban workhouse environment. I disregard, therefore, claims that the existing planting along the boundary somehow disconnects the homes from its historic setting. Setting in this context extends beyond visual considerations to encompass an important and essential functional link and it is worth noting that a new modern building erected very close to the original field boundary will have a far greater impact.

The submitted Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) states that the applicant recognises that the Grade II listed buildings as relevant heritage assets with the potential to be affected by proposals for development within the CLCC site. I disagree strongly with the claim made in the HIA that ‘the relative significance of Grade II listed buildings is reasonably determined as moderate’. All statutory listed buildings are of special architectural or historic interest. They are classified into grades to show their relative national importance and the vast majority, 94%, are grade II.

I contend that ‘Cottage Homes’ complexes, particularly prior to 1900, are relatively rare. A parliamentary report listed only 25 such sites in 1903, including Countesthorpe, where the quality of the architecture and materials are readily apparent and far superior to the building currently proposed. It is not only one of the earliest but one of the larger such groups and incorporates a full range of facilities, including farmland, absent from other less fortunate sites. The HIA should have compared objectively the situation nationally before asserting that the Cottage Homes in Countesthorpe, which is reasonably complete, is merely of moderate significance. The complex is an important and rare asset which enriches your District and the college campus.

In addition to the statutory listed buildings two non-designated heritage assets are also affected by the proposals. The 1960’s Community College building is acknowledged to be of considerable architectural, social and historic interest and may properly be considered to be a non-designated heritage asset, whilst the Leysland High School building has been recorded by the Leicestershire and Rutland Historic Environment Record (HER) as an undesignated asset.

Paragraph: 039 of the Planning Practice Guidance states: ‘a substantial majority of buildings have little or no heritage significance and thus do not constitute heritage assets. Only a minority have enough heritage significance to merit identification as non-designated heritage assets’.

Most buildings in the country do not possess any appreciable heritage interest. The few that do should be treated as non-designated heritage assets. All non-designated

heritage assets are, therefore, relatively rare and possess significance which is a material consideration in the planning process. This interpretation is apparently different to that contained in the HIA: ‘Planning Practice Guidance is unequivocal that only a minority of nondesignated heritage assets have enough heritage interest for their significance to be a material consideration in the planning process. It follows therefore, that whilst of some historic and architectural value the significance of Countesthorpe College and the former Leysland High School building and their setting, is assessed as being low’.

The NPPF notes that far from being of low value heritage assets ‘are an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations’.

The HIA concedes that the potential demolition of the Leysland High School Building has a direct effect (it will of course result in the total loss of significance or a high level of harm) but claims the significance is reduced because ‘it is in a removed location from the original 1970’s ‘Hub’ and ‘Cottage Homes’. I do not comprehend how in this case its original location appreciably diminishes its significance. It was never functionally or visually linked to the Cottage Homes and an integral part of its significance is the evidence the later school provides for the progression of educational practice following the experimental college building nearby. Arguments about the buildings being unkempt, site legacy issues (?) or providing views do not appear to be particularly compelling arguments for its demolition.

The harm that will be caused to the 1960’s college building is largely indirect but development within the setting of a heritage asset can be harmful to their significance and must be taken into account. I do not consider ‘wrapping’ the new building around the college to be a positive step. The land contributes to an attractive largely original open setting and building so close to the distinctive college in an incongruous style and form devalues the original architectural composition and ability to appreciate the innovative layout. In this case I consider the level of harm to significance will be less than substantial.

Impact of development The HIA claims that:- ‘The relationship between the development site and identified heritage assets is maintained; the site is an existing school site adjacent to privately owned residential dwellings. The setting of the adjacent heritage assets will be safeguarded by the separation distance between the proposed new building and The Drive, and by the enhancement to the ‘parkland setting’ through building orientation, height and massing, the creation of plazas, accessible open space, building materials and landscaping. The open frontage of the Cottage Homes is maintained. The single storey height limits any intermittent views through existing boundary vegetation and enables continued views of The Drive roofscape from within the CLCC site.’

The historical functional relationship, which I believe contributes to their significance, is not maintained. A building is obviously different in character to open space and following development the land that is left becomes part of the setting of the new building rather than just the heritage assets.

The historic setting is not effectively safeguarded by the paltry separation distance proposed. The Key Heritage Assets Significance Plan in the HIA includes an apparently arbitrary, but convenient line given the submitted plans, which denotes the potential extent of area for new build. I would like further justification why the line is drawn in that position and suggest it needs to be pushed away from the College and Homes. It is worth noting that the proposed sprinkler breaks even this ‘generous’ line and a strong justification is required why this incongruous feature cannot be located elsewhere.

It is inconceivable that the an enhancement of the parkland setting will offset any of the harm that will be caused; there is simply insufficient space left over for plazas and useful open space that reflects the original recreational or agricultural function of the land.

The new building continues to occupy a sensitive part of the remaining open space associated with the cottage homes and in my view the quality of design, including its location, is still not high enough for you to ignore the important statutory and National Planning Policy obligations. A change to a mainly single storey structure overcomes some of the problems associated with the massing of the previous two storey building located in close proximity to the heritage assets but I note that one of the wings in particular encroaches towards the listed cottages. The Heritage Impact Statement recognises ‘the heritage value is increased by its group and townscape quality’ and I would argue compromising the visual or functional setting of even one of the historic homes affects the integrity of the complex as a whole.

Single storey class rooms, and the proposed sprinkler building, may arguably be subservient to the historic houses and other historic buildings but are still be harmful in this extremely heritage sensitive context. The development represents an unwelcome alien intrusion and will inevitably impact on views of the heritage assets from inside and outside the CLCC site; to claim otherwise is also wholly unrealistic. Current legislation and planning policies demand that development of the campus in the twenty first century avoids harm to significance of the heritage assets, the current proposals fail in this fundamental requirement.

I continue to be surprised that having properly noted the harm that was caused to the setting of the Homes by the erection of the College, the HIA is not unduly concerned by developing a significant part of the longstanding, landscape buffer, which it should be remembered was in place at the time of statutory listing. This site only remains open because the LPA in the 1990’s consistently resisted pressure to develop it, for Birtkett House Special School for example. The best, possibly the only way, to avoid harm in this case and to comply with relevant legislation policies and guidance is to avoid building on this space. A truly objective assessment of the heritage implications would recognise this fundamental constraint instead of trying to put forward apparently unsustainable arguments that attempt to support financial expediency and convenience.

Paragraph 194 of the NPPF requires that a clear and convincing justification is required under for any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting).

I am not in a position to assess those benefits, or dis-benefits, associated with the application apart from those relating to the historic environment but presume that the principal educational advantage is still linked closely to the principal objective of managing pupils moving between classes; improvement relating to an upgrade in facilities could possibly met within the existing school building with the added benefit of conserving one of the heritage assets.

Various options are described in the Appendix to the Design and Access Statement but they do not appear to take account of some of the changes incorporated in the submitted design and layout, including removing the earlier constraints linked to car parking next to the college and a mature oak tree. The appraisal continues to give insufficient weight to those negative heritage impacts which are contrary to the legislation and but demonstrates that the principal educational aim of the development could be achieved by other methods.

This remains significance given that the ‘Forge Field’ judgement (2014) at paragraph 61 states:- ‘If there is a need for development of the kind proposed, which in this case there was, but the development would cause harm to heritage assets, which in this case it would, the possibility of the development being undertaken on an alternative site on which that harm can be avoided altogether will add force to the statutory presumption in favour of preservation. Indeed, the presumption itself implies the need for a suitably rigorous assessment of potential alternatives’.

I find it frustrating that the appraisal does not consider more radical options, which as well as protecting the unique and nationally significant philanthropic cottage homes and its setting, could deliver a locally distinctive and improved development from an educational perspective. These include revising the main vehicular access or, as suggested by a previous case officer, arranging the new building in a pavilion like form, around the edge of the open space to enhance its longstanding village green character and enable a more useable space for recreational purposes.

Development in or near to this location should must maintain or even strengthen the heritage sensitive setting of the listed buildings and other heritage assets. A more ambitious form of development could be in keeping with the sentiment expressed by LiFE Multi Academy Trust which claims it recognises the valuable heritage setting and believes fundamentally in the use of the school grounds and context as a valuable educational resource. It is encouraging that the Trust CEO states that the ‘parkland’ setting has the potential to be fully exploited as a learning resource as this would arguably be in accordance with its original function. Unfortunately erecting a poor or average quality building on so much of the remaining open space and vital to a proper understanding of the historic function of the Cottage Homes, is not in accordance with this positive aspiration”.

Leicestershire Fire & Rescue Service – no representation received.

Severn Trent Water – no representation received.

Sport England has no objections as the proposed development affects only land incapable of forming part of a playing pitch


239 representations have been received stating support for the application and in summary making comments on the following grounds:

The current buildings are not fit for purpose The students and teachers need and deserve this investment with improved,

modern and vital education facilities Young people would benefit with an improved educational experience,

learning environment, feel more positive, have greater respect, achieve their potential and it will improve results

Supported by parents with children at or about to start at the College Would benefit current and future students The whole community will benefit The community and young people would be failed if planning permission was

not granted Will make it easier to school staff to monitor student behaviour including

reducing bullying and other safeguarding issues Would improve the movement of students between buildings and allow the

College to be run more efficiently Currently the students have to walk between buildings including in cold & wet

weather and learning time is lost. Recent OFSTED report So many children are currently having to travel outside the village for

secondary school education To enable expansion of the college and to increase capacity needed due to

housing growth Do not see any issues for surrounding buildings or residents The benefits outweigh the impact on views from neighbouring homes The new building would be greener and more energy efficient The old building could be put to another use No impact on wildlife It would be good if provision for a swimming pool was also made

2 representations have been received stating neither support or objecting and commenting:

What will happen to the site of the Leysland building? Benefits for the school understood Impact of loss of turning head on The Drive

27 representations have been received (6 of which were received following the 1st

reconsultation and 4 following the 2nd reconsultation) stating an objection to the proposal and in summary making comments on the following grounds:

Works have been allowed to commence already Trees have been removed and during the bird nesting season Proposal involves the loss of trees and vegetation Resources impact of removing trees and then replanting with new trees

Ecological impact Fencing proposals and impact on existing boundary vegetation and loss of

screening. Impact of fencing proposals on the residents of The Drive The County Council has previously resisted weld mesh fencing Visual impact from the proposed earth bunds and planting proposals and

potential for area to students to hide with concerns about resulting student behaviour

Landscaping plans refer 'future area to be remodelled by the school'. With no further details this should not be considered in assessing the application

Previous problem student behaviour including when there was previously insufficient boundary treatment between the school and The Drive

Concerns over previous application have not been addressed Lack of consultation with residents of The Drive Drawings submitted are incorrect, inconsistent and/or complicated and

confusing Building proposed is closer to listed buildings than the previously refused

scheme Impact on setting of listed buildings. Inappropriate design. Submission does not adequately address the impacts on listed buildings or

demonstrate the rationale behind the chosen option and how this responds to the site constraints

Proximity to 9 The Drive and impact on residential amenity of occupants including shiftworkers.

Leysland building could be refurbished instead Loss of sports hall in the Leysland building College is being considered by English Heritage for listing New building could be sited on the tennis courts and astro pitch Other large school sites have situations where students have to walk between

buildings. Correct timetabling should be used with good leadership. Health benefits from students walking on site Concern over the benefits stated of the proposals School facilities not being adequately maintained Scheme uses land not in the ownership of the school Impact of removal of turning head at the end of The Drive No provision made for emergency vehicle access No provision made for vehicular access for maintenance vehicles to the

school fields Issues with construction management plan Clarification on parking proposals is needed Minor adjustments made to the plans do not change the impact on listed

buildings County Highways comments not agreed with and validity questioned

Relevant History

19/0818/FUL Erection of 2 storey school building as an Refusedextension to existing school (Countesthorpe 06.09.2019Leysland Community College) and demolition of existing school building (Leysland High School).

Leysland School

15/0246/FUL Installation of modular building to serve as Approvedtemporary classroom block. 07.04.2015

16/0488/FUL Erection of security fencing, manual and automatic Approvedvehicular and pedestrian gates, provision of 21.06.2016bollard and lamp post lighting, provision ofpedestrian footpaths, landscaping and additionalcar parking.

Countesthorpe College

09/0546/CX Demolition of existing building and erection of a Approvedsingle storey building for use as a vocational 04.11.2009centre.

10/0860/1/CX Erection of a new block for pupils of Birkett ApprovedHouse with special needs, including associated 30.01.2012parking, formation of a new access and relocationof an existing ball court.

16/0271/FUL Replacement of existing fencing and floodlighting Approvedwith new 3m high fencing and 8m high columns 25.04.2016with floodlights mounted at a height of 8.7m.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Site

The application site is located to the west of Countesthorpe, within the village settlement boundary and is formed of approximately 3.7 hectares of land forming the curtilage of the now Countesthorpe Leysland Community College. This site was once formed of two separate schools, Countesthorpe Community College and Leysland High School. Whilst they were once separate schools, historically they have been physically contained within the same educational complex, with an internal road linking the two schools.

The schools amalgamated in 2016, forming the now Countesthorpe Leysland Community College, a co-educational secondary school with academy status teaching approximately 1,460 students aged 11-19. The school currently provides its teaching between the two school buildings, with the Leysland building (proposed to be demolished) approximately 200-250 metres to the north of the main school building (to be retained).

The Countesthorpe Community College and Leysland High School buildings are both recorded as heritage assets on the Leicestershire and Rutland Historic Environment Record (HER) and they both have unique identification numbers, respectively MLE17563 and MLE17564.

A large, open and irregular shaped grassed area, between 40 – 90 metres wide separates the main school building from Countesthorpe Cottage Homes (The Drive) to the west, an important philanthropic development dating from 1884 which currently includes 13 statutorily listed buildings or designated heritage assets. This grassed area is the site of the proposed new two storey school building.

An internal pathway, mesh fenced on either side, runs between the two existing school buildings and crosses through this grassed area, providing pedestrian access for students between the two schools.

Car parking for the site is currently located along the internal road between the two school buildings, with further parking spaces located to the immediate north of and opposite the entrance to the main building.

The application site includes multi-functional school outdoor sports courts and pitches and these are located on land in between the two schools. In addition, a day nursery and SureStart Centre are also located within the site. Birkett House, for pupils with special needs, is located to the south of the main school building and is accessed separately off Cosby Road. For clarity, Birkett House was granted permission in 2012 after amendments were agreed between the applicant and the District Planning Authority, which relocated built development (mobile classroom and car parking) away from the setting of the Grade II listed buildings along The Drive.

Beyond the application site boundary to the north and west lies open agricultural land (Green Wedge).

In 2019 a planning application was submitted for the erection of a 2 storey school building as an extension to existing school (Countesthorpe Leysland Community College) and demolition of existing school building (Leysland High School). The application was refused by the Planning Committee in September 2019 for the following reasons:

1. The proposed scheme would cause harm to the designated and non designated heritage assets within and outside of the application site, which has not been satisfactorily justified. The identified public benefits of the development are not considered to outweigh the harm to the setting of the Grade II listed buildings on The Drive, and the applicant has failed to satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposed development could not reasonably be accommodated elsewhere on the site without harm to the listed buildings. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to provide an historic building appraisal and impact assessment for the existing Leysland building which justifies the loss of this non-designated heritage asset and the impact that its loss may have on the significance of the existing Countesthorpe Community College building. The scheme is therefore contrary to statutory legislation contained within Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Policies CS20 of the Blaby District Local Plan Core Strategy (2013), DM12 of the Blaby District Local Plan Delivery DPD (2019) and national planning policy and guidance.

2. The proposals include operations that may affect, or have the potential to affect, heritage assets with an archaeological interest and may destroy any buried archaeological remains that are present. The applicant has failed to provide sufficient archaeological information in the form of a field evaluation by trial trenching, in order that an assessment can be made on the effect on archaeological remains and other heritage assets.

Since the refusal of the previous application, the applicant and representatives of the College have worked with your Officers to find a solution to deliver the new accommodation needed for the College. This current application has been submitted following these discussions.

The Proposal

The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a detached single storey school building on land to the north west of the main, single storey school. The proposed building will be located on an area of grassed land, within the curtilage of and approximately 10 metres from the main school building.

The scheme also proposes the demolition of the existing Leysland High School, a detached building over 200 metres to the north of the main Countesthorpe College building, with its land returned to grass. The erection of a 2.4 metre high sprinkler tank compound to the north of the proposed building, approximately 25 metres from the nearest listed building (No. 9 The Drive) is also proposed. A surface water drainage system would be located to the west of the proposed new school building.

The application states that permission is sought for the development in order to provide modern accessible facilities in a more tight knit campus arrangement for the recently amalgamated schools. Since the two schools were amalgamated and granted academy status in 2016, teaching has been split between the former Leysland High School building and Countesthorpe Community College.

The applicant, in their application submission has stated that “the requirement to encourage the complete integration of the 2 former schools and the modernisation of the school buildings, was determined to be achievable only by demolishing one of the existing schools, and amalgamating the replacement facilities onto a single site. The replacement building, with its new and modern facilities, would then be located as close as possible to one of the existing school buildings. This offers a number of advantages. The most important of these is that its physical proximity will reduce time wasted by the pupils having to constantly move between the two sites, and encourage the creation of a new, cohesive identity for the amalgamated school” (Design & Access Statement p4).


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

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 provides a strong presumption in favour of preservation of Listed Buildings and their settings. It requires local planning authorities in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. This legislative duty requires that only after having recognised the level of importance attributed to preservation of heritage assets, can a balanced judgement be carried out as to whether there are any circumstances significant enough that outweigh this. In simple terms, this means that the statutory legislation requires that there be a presumption in favour of refusal of development which would cause harm to listed buildings or their setting, unless there is over-riding evidence of public gain significant enough to outweigh that harm.

Historic England’s online Heritage Protection Guide, in the Decision-Making Principles for Listed Building and Other Consents section states;

“Decision-making policies in the NPPF and in the local development plan are also to be applied, but they cannot directly conflict with or avoid the obligatory consideration in these statutory provisions” (the obligation, found in sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990).

The District Council must also give great weight to recent High Court Judgements. For example; Forge Field Society v. Sevenoaks DC (2014), and Forest of Dean District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Gladman Developments Limited (2016), which emphasise the considerable importance and weight which must be given to harm to designated heritage assets.

National Planning Policy Framework

The National Planning Policy Framework establishes the key principles for proactively delivering sustainable development through the development plan system and the determination of planning applications. It sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. At a very high level, the objective of sustainable development can be summarised as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways (so that opportunities can be taken to secure net gains across each of the different objectives). These objectives are:

An economic objective

A social objective An environmental objective

For decision-taking this means:

approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or

where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or

ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

Other relevant policies of the NPPF are referenced below:

Paragraph 184 describes heritage assets as ‘irreplaceable resources’ which should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance.

Paragraphs 193 – 196 state that 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 (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. Any harm to, or loss of the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. 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.

Paragraph 197 states that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining planning applications. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss of the significance of the heritage asset.

Paragraph 94 discusses the importance that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. It goes on to state that local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. It states that Local Planning Authorities should:

a) give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools through the preparation of plans and decisions on applications; and

b) work with schools promoters, delivery partners and statutory bodies to identify and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted.


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

Policy CS1 – Strategy for Locating New Development

Policy CS1 seeks to focus new development in the most sustainable locations in the district, primarily within and adjoining the Principal Urban Area (PUA) of Leicester (Glenfield, Kirby Muxloe, Leicester Forest East, Braunstone Town and Glen Parva). The application site is located outside of the PUA, within a settlement defined as a ‘Larger Central Village’ by Policy CS5. However, the application proposes a replacement school building within an existing school site.


Policy CS2 seeks to ensure that a high quality environment is achieved in all new development proposals, respecting distinctive local character and providing opportunities to enhance the natural and historic environment. The strategic objectives of this Policy seek to preserve and enhance the cultural heritage of the District, recognising its contribution to local distinctiveness and to seek design solutions which preserve and enhance heritage assets where they are impacted by development.

Policy CS11 – Infrastructure, Services and Facilities to Support Growth

Policy CS11 seeks to deliver the infrastructure, services and facilities required to meet the needs of the population of the District of Blaby, including those arising from growth.

Policy CS14 – Green Infrastructure & Policy CS19 – Bio-diversity and Geo-diversity

Both these Policies seek to ensure that the District’s natural environment, wildlife, habitats, landscape and geology are considered and protected through good design practices, seeking to protect existing green spaces and provide new good quality, multi-functioning green networks and corridors.

Policy CS20 – Historic Environment and Culture

This Policy recognises the need for the Council to take a positive approach to the conservation of heritage assets by considering proposals for development on, in, or adjacent to historic sites, areas and buildings against the need to ensure the protection and enhancement of the heritage asset and its setting. This Policy goes on to state that proposed development should avoid harm to the significance of historic sites, buildings or areas, including their setting. It will also expect new

development to make a positive contribution to the character and distinctiveness of the local area.


This Policy seeks to support new development which mitigates and adapts to climate change. New development should be focussed in the most sustainable locations in accordance with Policies CS1 and CS5 and use sustainable design principles which reduce energy demand and increase efficiency. The development is on an existing school site and the new building would meet current building regulations standards and as such be more efficient that the building proposed to be demolished.


This Policy seeks to ensure that all new development minimises flood risk vulnerability, providing resilience to flooding by directing new development to locations at the lowest risk of flooding within the District, using sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and managing surface water run off. The development is proposed in an area defined as Flood Zone 1, an area with the lowest flood risk. Leicestershire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority has not objected to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions concerning surface water management.


Policy CS24 requires that when considering development proposals, Blaby District Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development and planning applications that accord with the policies in the Local Plan Core Strategy will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.


The Delivery DPD was adopted on 4th February 2019 and full weight can be given to its policies. It sits alongside the Core Strategy to form part of the Development Plan for the District. These documents replace the Blaby Local Plan 1999. The following Policies are relevant to this application;

Policy – DM1 Development with the Settlement Boundaries

This policy relates to development within the Settlement Boundaries and states that development proposals consistent with other policies of the Local Plan will be supported provided the criteria listed which relate to design considerations and the relationship with other nearby uses.

Policy - DM8 Local Parking & Highway Design Standards

This Policy requires that new development will be required to provide an appropriate level of parking and servicing provision as set out in the most up-to-date Leicestershire Local Highway Guidance.

All new development and changes of use will be required to meet highway design standards as set out in the most up-to-date Leicestershire Local Highway Guidance.

Policy - DM12 Designated and Non-designated Heritage Assets

Like Core Strategy Policy CS20, this Policy seeks to preserve and enhance the cultural heritage of the District, recognising its contribution to local distinctiveness. This Policy seeks to ensure that heritage assets are suitably considered and where necessary, protected when affected by a development proposal.

Under this policy designated heritage assets and their settings (including Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments and Conservation Areas) will be given the highest level of protection to ensure that they are conserved and enhanced in a manner appropriate to their significance and contribution to the historic environment.

In addition, with regard to non-designated heritage assets, a balanced consideration will be applied to proposals which may impact upon non-designated heritage assets. Proposals will be supported where the benefits of the scheme are considered to outweigh the scale of any harm or loss, having regard to the significance of the heritage asset.

This Policy states that the Council will need to demonstrate that it has given the specific provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 considerable importance and weight in determining planning applications affecting Listed Buildings and that the applicant will also need to justify the development proposal in the light of these provisions.

This issue is fully set out and balanced further in the report.

Material Considerations


Designated and non-designated heritage assets

Among the key planning considerations is the impact of the development on the setting of several designated and non-designated heritage assets.

The proposed new, modern design, single storey school building would be located within close proximity to the dwellings at Countesthorpe Cottage Homes (The Drive), an important philanthropic development of national importance, built by the Leicester Poor Law Union in 1884 in the Arts and Crafts style.

The purpose of the original cottage homes development was to relocate deprived children from city workhouses, offering education and vocational skills within an open agricultural landscape setting. The Cottage Homes now includes 13 statutorily listed buildings (Grade II) or designated heritage assets. Historic maps and photographs confirm that this now grassed land which forms the development site was an integral part of the original Cottage Homes development. From a visual perspective the individual dwellings were arranged along a drive to face the land, in a carefully planned composition that resembles a traditional village green. The close functional association between part of the application site and Cottage Homes increases its historic significance and sensitivity.

It is clear from legislation, national planning policy directives and Historic England guidance that the setting of heritage assets is often an important factor in their special interest or significance and whilst it is frequently considered in visual terms, setting can also encompass the environment in which a place or building is experienced, their local context embracing present and past relationships to the adjacent land.

Cartographic and photographic evidence suggests that, as is the case today, tree planting partially restricted views to and from the dwellings but the open land contributed positively to a rural outlook which, together with the design of the buildings, offered a marked, probably intended, contrast to the harsh urban workhouse environment.

The existing 1960s college campus also contains buildings of architectural and historic interest. Both Countesthorpe Community College and Leysland High school buildings are recorded in the Historic Environment Record (HER) as heritage assets.

Advice on the impacts of the development on heritage assets has been sought from the Council’s historic buildings advisor. The full text of the advisor’s comments is included in the representations section of this report for clarity.

Designated heritage assets

Work undertaken in respect of the previous proposal established that the significance of several listed buildings and two non-designated heritage assets is likely to be indirectly or directly affected by development within the school grounds.

Your officers concur with the Historic Buildings Advisor’s comments which dispute the claim made by the applicant in the submitted Heritage Impact Assessment that ‘the relative significance of Grade II listed buildings is reasonably determined as moderate’.

All statutory listed buildings are of special architectural or historic interest. They are classified into grades to show their relative national importance and the vast majority, 94%, are grade II. The Council’s historic buildings advisor considers “that ‘Cottage Homes’ complexes, particularly prior to 1900, are relatively rare. A parliamentary report listed only 25 such sites in 1903, including Countesthorpe, where the quality of the architecture and materials are readily apparent … It is not only one of the earliest but one of the larger such groups and incorporates a full range of facilities,

including farmland, absent from other less fortunate sites….The complex is an important and rare asset which enriches your District and the college campus”.

There is planting along the site boundary with the drive. However, it is considered that this planting does not dislocate the application site from the setting of the Listed Buildings. Furthermore, setting in this context extends beyond visual considerations to encompass a functional link. The close functional association between the application site and the Cottages increases the historic significance and sensitivity of the site proposed for the new development.

The Council’s historic buildings advisor agrees with the applicant that the introduction of the 1960’s College development has somewhat compromised the original setting of the Homes and has likely seen the removal of some associated agricultural outbuildings which are visible on historic maps. However, he advises that this does not set a precedent for additional development on the application site. It should also be noted that the Cottage Homes were listed over a decade after the building of the college and that the listing also predates the 1990 Act which today offers statutory protection to the setting of those listed buildings.

Non-designated heritage assets

In addition to the statutory listed buildings two non-designated heritage assets are also affected by the proposals. The 1960’s Community College building is acknowledged to be of considerable architectural, social and historic interest and may properly be considered to be a non-designated heritage asset, whilst the Leysland High School building has been recorded by the Leicestershire and Rutland Historic Environment Record (HER) as an undesignated asset.

Paragraph: 039 of the Planning Practice Guidance states: ‘a substantial majority of buildings have little or no heritage significance and thus do not constitute heritage assets. Only a minority have enough heritage significance to merit identification as non-designated heritage assets’.

Most non-listed buildings in the country do not possess any appreciable heritage interest. The few that do should be treated as non-designated heritage assets. All non-designated heritage assets are, therefore, relatively rare and possess significance which is a material consideration in the planning process. The NPPF notes that far from being of low value heritage assets ‘are an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations’.

The reason for their inclusion on the HER is that they are both specifically mentioned by Sir Nikolaus Pevsner in the Leicestershire and Rutland volume of his works on the Buildings of England. This series offers descriptions of every building of architectural importance, in every county in England and is widely acknowledged as a unique and invaluable collection of reference material for architectural scholars. Additionally Countesthorpe Community College is included in ‘England’s Schools: History, Architecture and Adaptation’- an important 2010 publication by English

Heritage which aims to broaden our understanding of the historical and architectural development behind school buildings.

Leicestershire was the first authority in the country to challenge the established pattern of separation within primary and secondary schooling, with the introduction of ‘comprehensive’ education. In 1957, the county began to implement ‘The Leicestershire Experiment and Plan’ which proposed the conversion of secondary modern stock into schools for those aged between 11-14, so that all of the older children could use the better-equipped grammar and technical schools. As new schools were built in Leicestershire at Desford (1967-70), Syston (1967-71) and at Countesthorpe (1967-70), existing conventions were further challenged by offering more flexible, centralised plans. Countesthorpe College is illustrated as a good example of this, where classrooms are replaced by open teaching areas grouped around a library or communal resource centre and science and craft areas became open plan units. These schools also followed the principals of Henry Morris’s Cambridgeshire village colleges, in providing facilities for the entire community. Leicestershire school buildings of the later 1960s and early 1970s might therefore be considered as being key in demonstrating this cultural shift in educational thinking across the country.

In 2017, Countesthorpe Leysland Community College was one of a selective group of later 20th century schools identified nationally for consideration for listing as part of Historic England’s project on post-war education buildings. Following a rigorous assessment of the special architectural and historical interest of the building, it was decided that the site was not eligible for listing as the school had been subject to substantial alterations in the late C20th and early C21st, which had compromised the architectural interest of the site. Although the site is not eligible for statutory listing, it is still considered to have cultural and architectural value as a non-designated heritage asset.

Pevsner describes the Leysland High School building (1973-4, extended 1979) as being on the same campus and by the same architects (Farmer and Dark) in the same materials as Countesthorpe Community College. He also describes its more dramatic forms, such as the exaggeratedly steep monopitch roof over the main hall. The HER includes the High School as an undesignated heritage asset because it is referenced by Pevsner and because of the group value that it has with the Community College building; it was designed by the same architects, who were working to a particular architectural and cultural vision as part of the new wave of educational building that was taking place across the country at this time.

Setting of heritage assets

Development within the setting of a heritage asset can be harmful to their significance and must be taken into account. The harm that will be caused to the 1960’s college building is largely indirect but the land where the new building would be sited does contribute to an attractive largely original open setting and building.

The Council’s historic buildings advisor considers that the new building “so close to the distinctive college in an incongruous style and form devalues the original architectural composition and ability to appreciate the innovative layout”. He

concludes that less than substantial harm to the setting of the existing college building would result.

The Historic Buildings Advisor disagrees with the applicant’s assertion that the historic setting has also been compromised by recent vegetation along the boundary between The Drive and College site. As noted above, trees to the front of the dwellings have been an established feature since the early C20. Further to this, it is also noted that the vast majority, if not all of the trees along this boundary are deciduous which offer more open ‘views through’ in the autumn and winter months. The officer does recognise that “single storey class rooms, and the proposed sprinkler building, may arguably be subservient to the historic houses and other historic buildings”. However, he still considers them to be harmful in this extremely heritage sensitive context.

Consideration is given to the northern end of The Drive, which is not tree lined and benefits (despite some unobtrusive mesh fencing) from wide open views across the grassed area. In this location, an understanding of the historic landscape setting of the dwellings (Cottage Homes development) is evident; the grassed area is clipped and several medium sized, well spaced trees present as a parkland type setting. Several trees within the school site have already been removed. The presence of the school is also evident from this vantage point in the distance, with pitches and courts to the north and east. It is concluded that the provision of a new building within such close proximity would have a detrimental impact on the setting of the listed dwellings in this location.

As a single storey building a larger footprint is proposed than that of the previously refused application for a two storey building. It would be closer to some of the listed building than the previous proposal. The new building has been designed to reflect the overall height and massing of the existing college building. However, it is not designed to replicate all of the design features of the 1960s building. This is due to the modern day needs of the college and the functional issues with the existing building’s layout and design. Furthermore, the new building will be clearly read as being built at a later date and as an evolution of the education buildings on the site. The applicant has carefully considered the pallet of materials proposed which will help to break up the massing of the individual elevations and will help to provide a contemporary appearance. The application includes a soft and hard landscaping scheme and fencing is proposed which would fall with permitted development rights as it would be no more than 2 metres in height.

Your officer’s consider that the single storey building proposed would be more low key and less visually intrusive within the setting of the heritage assets than that of the previously proposed two storey building. However, there would still be less than substantial harm to the setting of heritage assets.

The applicant has undertaken an archaeological trial trench evaluation of the proposed development area. A site inspection visit was made by the Council’s archaeological advisor during the course of the work and the submitted report on the results confirms that no significant archaeological remains were identified within the development footprint. The Planning Archaeologist advises that no further below

ground archaeological investigation is required in advance of any permitted development within this area.

The proposal includes the demolition of the former Leysland building with the site being levelled and laid to grass and therefore would result in the total loss of significance or a high level of harm to this non-designated heritage asset. The Planning Archaeologist raises concerns with the proposal to demolish but does not state an objection subject to a programme of historic building recording being undertaken in advance of demolition, to record and advance our understanding of the significance of the heritage asset that is to be lost, in a manner that is proportionate to its importance (NPPF Section 16, paragraph 199). A planning condition is recommended in this regard.

As set out above, the NPPF states (paras 193 – 196) that 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 (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.

Recent case law is clear, statutory legislation (The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990) requires that there be a presumption in favour of refusal of development which would cause harm to listed buildings or their setting unless there is over-riding evidence of public gain significant enough to outweigh that harm.

The NPPF also requires that any harm to, or loss of the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. 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.

Consideration is therefore turned to any justification, or over-riding evidence of public gain significant enough to outweigh the established harm.

Assessment of public gain resulting from the development

The applicant, the college and their consultants have worked positively and constructively with your Officers following the previous decision to refuse planning permission in September 2019. Discussions have taken place around:

The need for the proposed development The public benefits of the proposed development Consideration and assessment of alternative options

Since the previous decision, further evaluation and consideration has been given to these matters and the applicant has submitted detailed reports with this current application.

Paragraph 94 of the NPPF states

“It is important that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. They should:

a) give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools through the preparation of plans and decisions on applications; andb) work with schools promoters, delivery partners and statutory bodies to identify and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted”.

The scheme is proposed in order to provide a demonstrable sustainable educational offer, as required by the Department of Education funding programme and it proposes a modern replacement school building within reasonably close proximity to the main school building.

In summary, the applicant states the following issues with the existing school facilities:

An identified need for a new teaching building in order to resolve fundamental site-specific legacy issues and incorporate limited additional capacity.

The separation and dysfunction of the existing College site is such that an allowance of five-minutes has been made for walking time at the change of lessons, every hour.

The staff leadership team has subsequently increased to manage pupil circulation, safety and welfare during this time.

Students often arrive to lessons late, taking longer than the five minutes allowed to walk between the buildings, impacting on lesson time thus reducing the opportunity for meaningful learning

The complexity and cost of supervising the site in social time. A number of students with special educational needs (SEND) attend the

College. Some of the SEND students are in wheelchairs or have other physical disabilities, which makes moving between the sites (buildings) more difficult and poses increased health and safety risk. These students have to be accompanied by a learning support assistant and there are occasions when the learning support assistant has needed to push a wheelchair whilst also carrying a laptop and other equipment again, posing health and safety risks.

Bad weather (snow, rain, high winds etc.) exacerbates issues (i.e. impact on lesson time, disability access).

Impact on staff due to the poor-quality environment within the former Leysland building and separation from main school building.

Funding from the Department of Education has been secured for the re-provision of the former Leysland building as there are health and safety issues and its layout is not fit for purpose.

.Furthermore, key findings of the July 2019 OfSTED report include the need to improve safeguarding of students, ensuring the use of additional funding for disadvantaged pupils rapidly raises levels of attendance and achievement for eligible

pupils, improve pupils’ personal development, behaviour and welfare, particularly reducing the proportions of disadvantaged pupils and pupils with SEND who are regularly absent from school and improve the quality of teaching, learning and impact on pupils’ outcomes.

The applicant has demonstrated a demonstrable need for a new school building which would bring significant public benefits. The new building will offer modern teaching and toilet facilities, unifying departments and will reduce the existing movement time between the two school buildings, thereby increasing learning time for students.

Recent case law (‘Forge Field’ judgement 2014) at paragraph 61 states:- ‘If there is a need for development of the kind proposed….but the development would cause harm to heritage assets….the possibility of the development being undertaken on an alternative site on which that harm can be avoided altogether will add force to the statutory presumption in favour of preservation. Indeed, the presumption itself implies the need for a suitably rigorous assessment of potential alternatives’.

The applicants have submitted an alternative site options appraisal as part of their submission in an attempt to address the above and the clear and convincing justification required under paragraph 194 of the NPPF for any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting).

Your Officers consider that a rigorous and sensitive site options / potential alternatives appraisal has been undertaken by the applicant. This is not the view of the Council’s historic buildings advisor who has also undertaken a partial assessment. However, he does not make a full assessment balancing all the material considerations and policy issues in this case. By taking a full assessment your Officers have come to a different conclusion on this matter.

The site options / potential alternatives appraisal demonstrates that the issues identified by the school, the Local Education Authority, the Department for Education and OFSTED can only be fully resolved by a new building in the location proposed. Retention and refurbishment of the former Leysland building would create a more attractive and modern environment and enable the retention of this non designated heritage asset but it would not resolve the inherent issues with the building and its separation from the main school building.

The applicant has stated that whilst the proposal and allocation of DfE funding is for the replacement of the former Leysland High School building, the new teaching building will provide additional capacity, modern, high specification and flexible teaching space, which can be used by various classes. However, your officer’s have given limited weight to the increased capacity proposed as it has not been demonstrated that additional pupil places will definitely be created by the development.

The applicant has worked with your Officers to consider design options for the new school building in the location proposed. The options have been considered in relation to the impact on the setting of the heritage assets and the functionality of the

building. The new building is located in close proximity to the existing Countesthorpe college building retaining much of the open area between the new building and The Drive. The building would be single storey with a simple contemporary design and the applicant has worked with Council Offices to bring forward a suitable pallet of materials.

There are clear and demonstrable public benefits from the proposal in terms of the quality of educational facilities for the local community. The new building has been designed to minimise the less than substantial harm on the setting of designated and non-designated heritage assets. Furthermore, it is considered that the applicant has thoroughly considered alterative options for the development and it is concluded that the development of a new building in the location proposed is the only option to fully deliver the educational needs and resolve inherent issues with the existing school site.

When considering the less than substantial harm to the setting of designated and non-designated heritage assets and the total loss of the former Leysland building, on balance, it is considered that the identified very substantial public benefits outweigh this harm.

The impact on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties

The existing use of the site is a school and community centre offering evening classes. The scheme does not propose an increase in school places and so there is unlikely to be any adverse impact in terms of additional vehicular/pedestrian comings and goings to and from the school.

The new building is proposed to house some art and design space along with an activity studio and general classrooms. It is not unreasonable to assume that some evening classes may be held in the new building. This single storey building will be located within reasonable proximity to the residential dwellings on The Drive with ground floor windows. The building has been orientated such that it is at an angle to all the properties on The Drive and windows do not directly face onto residential properties.

The Council did not raise any issues with the previous application for a two storey building in relation to residential amenity. This new proposal is for a single storey building. However, the removal of the second storey means that the overall footprint of the building needs to increase to accommodate the facilities required. This means that the amended scheme does in part sit closer to several properties on The Drive.

The dwellings located to the north of The Drive have no landscape screening between their dwellings and the proposed new school building. However, this new building will be visible to the residents of these affected dwellings, but it is considered that there is unlikely to be any detrimental impact in terms of overlooking or loss of privacy due to the distance to the new building and its orientation.

There is some landscape screening along the boundary with the dwellings to the immediate west of the proposed new school building. The screening from the landscaping will be greatly reduced during the autumn and winter months and the

new building will be visible to the residents of these affected dwellings. However, it is considered that the distance between the new single storey building and the dwellings would not unacceptably impact on residents in terms of loss of privacy/overlooking.

A noise assessment has been submitted with the application and Environmental Services consider the mitigation proposed for the new building to be acceptable. Furthermore many of the properties on The Drive already front on to the active college site and this part of the site could already be used for outdoor teaching and recreation space for the students. As such it is not considered that it can be demonstrated that noise and disturbance would increase beyond what could already occur.

A condition is recommended with regard to the submission and implementation of a construction site management plan which will include measures around construction noise and suppression of dust.

Highway considerations

The proposal will involve the loss of some existing parking and the creation of new parking areas.

Leicestershire County Council as Highway Authority has advised that the impacts of the development on highway safety would not be unacceptable, and when considered cumulatively with other developments, the impacts on the road network would not be severe subject to conditions.

The plans did initially show the removal of a turning head at the end of The Drive which is a private road. However, the scheme has been amended and it does not now include the removal of the turning head.

Conclusion and Planning Balance

The District Planning Authority must determine planning applications in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Both local and national policy require that any harm caused to designated and non-designated heritage assets from development requires clear and convincing justification, with that harm carefully balanced against the public benefits to be gained from the proposal. Listed buildings and their settings are further statutorily protected by virtue of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The District Council has also given consideration to recent High Court Judgements as set out above, which require that there be a presumption in favour of refusal of development which would cause harm to listed buildings or their setting, unless there is over-riding evidence of public gain significant enough to outweigh that harm.

Following the refusal of a previous planning application in 2019, the applicant has made substantial changes to the design and massing of the proposal. Furthermore, the applicant has provided evidence that alternative options to meet educational

needs have been appropriately considered. Archaeological trail trenching has been undertaken and no significant archaeological remains have been identified within the development footprint. The applicant has undertaken a historic building appraisal of the former Leysland College building and a condition is recommended to ensure that a programme of archaeological recording is undertaken prior to demolition.

Having balanced all of the issues, your Officers are of the opinion that the public benefits of the proposal outweigh the less than substantial harm to the designated and non-designated heritage assets within and outside of the application site and loss of the former Leysland College building. As such the application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

w3.blaby.gov.uk · Web viewContact Details: Council Offices. Tel 0116 250 3078 RECOMMENDATION: THAT...

Documents

Transcript of w3.blaby.gov.uk · Web viewContact Details: Council Offices. Tel 0116 250 3078 RECOMMENDATION: THAT...