Agenda item

Application for residential development of up to 93 dwellings, public open space, landscaping and SuDS (Outline – access only) (cross boundary application with Charnwood BC)

 

Late items received after publication of agenda:

 

Introduction:-

 

This application was first heard at Planning Committee on 14 December 2021. The recommendation was to approve the application, but the application was deferred to re-consult with LCC Highways and Environmental Health on the impact upon neighbouring residential amenity for car headlights leaving the proposed access. Committee Members also requested that legal advice was sought on the application.

For clarity the following sections within the December Committee report remain unchanged:

·           Heritage

·           Impact upon trees

·           Impact upon highway safety

·           Drainage

·           Impact upon public rights of way

·           Ecology

 

Consultations:-

 

LCC Highways comments remain unchanged from that previously reported within the December committee report and they have no further comments in regard to the re-consultation.

 

HBBC Environmental Health’s comments are within the appraisal section of this late item.

Charnwood Borough Council have formally responded to the consultation on this application and stated that they did not respond within the formal consultation period as they did not wish to pre-determine the application. They also stated that the application within their area now has a resolution to grant.

An additional comment has been received stating that the secondary school contribution has been reported as being directed to the wrong school – this was updated within 14 December Committee Late Item.

 

Legal Advice Summary:-

 

HBBC have sought legal advice on the following:

 

a)        The duty to co-operate in the Localism Act 2011

b)        The soundness of Charnwood Borough Council’s committee decision to grant outline planning permission

c)         The consideration of the application as a whole and its impact upon HBBC and the Markfield Neighbourhood Plan

The advice sought advised the following in respect of the above matters:

 

a)        Section 110 of the Localism Action 2011 deals with plans and strategies and inserts a new section (33A) into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This provision contains the duty to co-operate which details the activities in which authorities should co-operate. The activities specified within this provision are related to the plan-making process. Section 33A of the 2004 Act imposes no duty to co-operate in respect of the determination of planning applications (whether or not those applications are ‘cross-boundary’), and no such duty was imposed upon Charnwood Borough Council (CBC) in this case.

 

b)        There is no obvious fundamental errors of procedure or law that would warrant a legal challenge. It is considered that all the correct material considerations were considered when reading the committee report and extras report together.

 

c)         In so far as the application submitted for HBBC’s consideration it is deemed that the assessment of the scheme against policies falls to the respective Local Plan or Neighbourhood Plan covering that area. The description of development relates to housing and therefore the application should be assessed as a housing scheme. However, it falls to the Charnwood Local Plan to assess the development of land within their administrative boundary and the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan and the Markfield Neighbourhood Plan to assess the development of Land within their administrative area. The impacts and benefits of the whole development can be considered by the Committee.

 

Appraisal:-

 

Key issues:

·           Assessment against strategic planning policies

·           Design and impact upon the character of the area

·           Impact upon neighbouring residential amenity

·           Other matters

·           Planning Balance

 

For clarity the above ‘assessment against strategic planning policies’ and ‘planning balance’ sections have been revised below in full so they can easily be followed without having to refer to different paragraphs of the original December committee report. The other sections should be read in conjunction with the December committee report.

Assessment against strategic planning policies

 

1.1.          Paragraph 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2021) states that planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise and that the NPPF is a material consideration in determining applications. Paragraph 12 of the NPPF confirms that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making.

 

1.2            Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Policy DM1 of the Site Allocation and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (SADMP) set out a presumption in favour of sustainable development, and state that development proposals that accord with the development plan should be approved unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan in this instance consists of the adopted Core Strategy (2009), the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (2016) and the Markfield Neighbourhood Plan (2020-2039).

 

1.3            The spatial distribution of growth across the Borough during the plan period 2006-2026 is set out in the adopted Core Strategy. This identifies and provides allocations for housing and other development in a hierarchy of settlements within the Borough. Markfield is identified as a Key Rural Centre within Policy 7 and 8 of the Core Strategy. Markfield has several key services, including a Library, Primary School and Medical Centre. This shows that the village has accessible community facilities serving the existing community, and any new residents of the future. In addition to this, within Markfield centre the following economic activity:  beauty salon, hot food takeaways, hairdressers, financial advisor, hardware store, convenience stores and supermarket (co-op) (This is supported in the District, Local and Neighbourhood Centre Review (2015) and the Community Facilities Review (2013)). In this sense Markfield is an economically and socially sustainable settlement.

 

1.4            To support its role as a Key Rural Centre, Policy 8 allocated a minimum of 80 new homes in Markfield. Since the adoption of the Core Strategy the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD (2016) allocated sites for housing in Markfield in three locations all of which had planning permission at the time of allocation equating to more than 80 dwellings.

 

1.5            Notwithstanding this, the housing policies in the Core Strategy and Site Allocations DPD are considered to be out-of-date as they focus on delivery of a lower housing requirement than required by the up-to-date figure when using the standard method set out by MHCLG. In addition, the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Therefore, any formal application should be determined against Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework whereby permission should be granted unless adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, supported by Policy DM1 of the SADMP.

 

1.6            This is weighed in the balance of the merits of any application and considered with the policies in the Site Allocations and Development Policies DPD and the Core Strategy which are attributed significant weight as they are consistent with the Framework.

 

1.7            In relation to paragraph 11(d), paragraph 14 of the framework states that where an application involves the provision of housing, the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with the Neighbourhood Plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits (subject to criteria). Markfield Neighbourhood Plan was made in September 2021 and is less than 2 years old and therefore supersedes the housing requirement within the Core Strategy and Site Allocations DPD.

 

1.8            Policy M15 of the Markfield Neighbourhood Plan identifies a housing requirement of 334 dwellings up to 2036. Taking into account completions and commitments this leaves a residual requirement of 280 dwellings to be provided within the neighbourhood plan area. Policy M16 of MNP allocates the land south of London Road for 280 dwellings to meet the residual requirement. This allocation now has planning permission for 282 dwellings and is classed within the Residential Land Availability Statement (2020-21) as deliverable. It should be noted that the majority of this application under consideration is not within the administrative boundary of HBBC and therefore this site could not be considered through the Neighbourhood Plan process.

 

1.9            The site is located outside of the settlement boundary of Markfield, within the countryside and therefore any application should be assessed against Policy DM4 of the SADMP and Policy M1 of the MNP.

 

1.10         Policy DM4 of the adopted SADMP seeks to protect the intrinsic value, beauty and open character and landscape character through safeguarding the countryside from unsustainable development.

 

1.11         DM4 states Development in the countryside will be considered sustainable where:

 

a)        It is for outdoor sport or recreation purposes (including ancillary buildings) and      it can be demonstrated that the proposed scheme cannot be provided within or adjacent to settlement boundaries; or

 

b)        The proposal involves the change of use, re-use or extension of existing    buildings which lead to the enhancement of the immediate setting; or

 

c)         It significantly contributes to economic growth, job creation and/or    diversification of rural businesses; or

 

d)        It relates to the provision of stand-alone renewable energy developments in line with policy DM2: Renewable Energy and Low Carbon Development; or

 

 

e)        It relates to the provision of accommodation for a rural worker in line with Policy DM5: Enabling Rural Worker Accommodation.

and:   

 

i)          It does not have a significant adverse effect on the intrinsic value, beauty, open character and landscape character of the countryside; and

 

ii)         It does not undermine the physical and perceived separation and open character between settlements; and

 

iii)        It does not create or exacerbate ribbon development;

 

iv)       If within a Green Wedge, it protects its role and function in line with Core    Strategy Policies 6 and 9; and

 

v)         If within the National Forest, it contributes to the delivery of the National     Forest Strategy in line with Core Strategy Policy 21

 

1.12         Policy M1 of the MNP states that the following types of development will be supported in countryside locations:

 

1)        Recreation and tourism that cannot be provided within the Settlement         Boundary;

2)        Development by statutory undertakers or public utility providers;

3)        The subdivision of an existing residential dwelling; and

4)        Development that is otherwise in accordance with: national policies, or       strategic planning policies or allocations; or with the other policies of the         Neighbourhood Plan.

 

1.13         The illustrative masterplan shows only the access, part of the road, the tree line and a minor part of the unadopted ‘Lane 2’ within Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council’s boundary. These parts of the proposal do not come under any of the categories identified in DM4 as sustainable development and so there is a conflict between the proposed development and the policy. 

 

1.14         As a conflict has been identified with Policy DM4 of the SADMP there is also a conflict with Policy M1 of the made Markfield Neighbourhood Plan (point 4). This conflict will be weighed within the revised planning balance.

 

Design and impact upon the character of the area

 

1.15         The assessment of the impact upon the character in regard to HBBC’s policies remains as stated within the December committee report (paragraphs 13.17-13.24). The below does detail the impact upon receptors within HBBC.  It is acknowledged that there would be a loss of a countryside view although noting that the view is not a protected view within the Markfield Neighbourhood Plan, the harm is considered moderate

 

1.16         The planning balance however has been updated below to include the harm identified by CBC within their committee report. Therefore, the assessment within the LVIA and the harm of the overall development has been detailed below to show how the level of harm identified by CBC and the weight given to this harm.

 

1.17         Zebra Landscape Architects (ZLA) Limited undertook an LVIA on behalf of the applicant for the submission of this application. The assessment assesses the impact pertaining to the whole site.

 

1.18         The majority of the site is located within the Charnwood Forest and Charnwood Borough Council have a Charnwood Forest Landscape Character Assessment (2019) for this area. The site is within Area 6 of this assessment (Thringstone/Markfield Quarries and Settlement). Charnwood’s sensitivity assessment states that the site had a low to medium landscape sensitivity to new residential development due to the screening effect of existing woodland.

 

1.19         The Assessment considers that the proposal is of a small scale and that the overall effect on the ‘Thringstone/Markfield Quarries and Settlement’ Landscape Character Area is minor. Some harm accrues as is always the case when open land is replaced with built form and its associated change of visual character. That harm in terms of landscape character in this instance is localised. The loss of the agricultural field inevitably creates harm however this is a localised harm due to the site context. There is therefore an adverse effect on Landscape character.

 

1.20         The residential receptors situated within close range of the site are likely to experience the effects of the proposed development. It is noted however that views of the site would be and are already filtered by mature vegetation along Ashby Road. It is noted however, that some pruning is proposed to this vegetation which has the potential to increase views.

 

1.21         It is likely only close-range views would be affected from vehicle route (predominantly the Ashby Road) with the discernibility of the proposal from the A50 dual carriageway and M1 Motorway likely to be imperceptible for users. Similarly, users of PRoW within close to medium range of the site are unlikely to be affected by the proposal with the development screened by intervening landform, residential built form, and the coniferous and deciduous woodland blocks of the Charnwood Forest.

 

1.22         The LVIA concludes that the site would not be harmful to the natural environment when read as a whole and would contribute to the aspiration of the landscape management guidance within Charnwood’s local plan.

 

1.23         CBC considered the above assessment within the determination of their application and identified harm to the landscape. This was also considered within CBC’s overall planning balance for the application. Therefore, Charnwood’s decision will be weighed within the planning balance.

 

Impact upon neighbouring residential amenity

 

1.24         The assessment within the December committee report regarding residential amenity still stands. This updated sections only comments on the additional light pollution issue raised at the December committee.

 

1.25         Policy DM10 of the SADMP identifies that development should not have a significant adverse effect on the privacy and amenity of nearby residents and occupiers of adjacent buildings, including matters of lighting, air quality (including odour), noise, vibration and visual intrusion.

 

1.26         A supplementary note was submitted in support of the application following concerns raised at the December committee meeting in regard to the impact upon neighbouring properties from headlight glare.

 

1.27         The site is currently unlit but Ashby Road itself and the dwellings opposite are. The location of the access is in part opposite no. 21 Ashby Road. This property is set back from Ashby Road by a grass verge, a footpath and boundary hedge approximately 0.6 metres in height. This boundary treatment will partially screen the access to the site from no. 21. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that there will be an adverse impact upon the residents of this neighbouring property.

 

1.28         The road level of the estate road and boundary treatments will partially mitigate the light pollution from car headlights. The distance between the access and the no. 21 (approximately 20 metres) also will reduce the glare from headlights. During the summer months, only night-time movements would be likely to cause minor disturbance to no. 21. HBBC Pollution have reviewed the note and state that the car lights could cause some impact but given the number of vehicles estimated to access the site it is unlikely to cause significant impact but could cause irritation and annoyance. 

 

1.29         Therefore, there will be an impact upon neighbouring residential amenity from the light pollution but not a significant impact that would justify refusal of the application. The conflict with Policy DM10 will be weighed within the planning balance.

 

Other matters

1.30         A comment has been made stating that the application has not been assessed against the Charnwood Forest Protection Plan.

 

1.31         The National Forest Company were consulted on the application and have no objections to the application.

 

Planning Balance

 

1.32         Policy DM4 sets out what type of development within the countryside is acceptable however as this is based on out-of-date settlement boundaries this policy is also classed as out-of-date but afforded significant weight. As there are out-of-date policies within the Core Strategy and Site Allocations DPD this application should be assessed within the ‘tilted balance’ in accordance with paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF. Therefore, a presumption of sustainable development applies.

 

1.33         As the application involves the provision of housing and the Markfield Neighbourhood Plan was made 10^th September 2021 paragraph 14 of the NPPF applies. This is weighed within the balance.

 

1.34         Paragraph 14 of the Framework is engaged, since it is less than 2 years since the NDP was made; the NDP contains policies and allocations to meet its identified housing requirement; there is in excess of a three-year supply of deliverable housing sites; and housing delivery is at least 45% of that required over the previous three years as set out within the HDT test results. In these circumstances the Framework states that the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

 

1.35         In terms of the development within Hinckley and Bosworth’s administrative boundary the development conflicts with Policy DM4 of the SADMP as it does not satisfy any of the criteria a-e. In terms of Policy DM10 and the character of the streetscene there is no identified conflict. There is an identified conflict with Policy DM4 in terms of the landscape character. Due to the proposals being in conflict with Policy DM4 the proposals are therefore also in conflict with Policy M1 of the MNP. This policy is afforded full weight. The conflict with Policy DM4 and Policy M1 is given significant weight.

 

1.36         There is also conflict with Policy DM10 of the SADMP due to the impact upon residential amenity from the car headlights. This is given moderate weight.

 

1.37         Charnwood Borough Council identify harm to the landscape and conflict with their Local Plan policies therefore this is also included within the balance. However, significant weight is given to the resolution to grant outline permission from Charnwood’s planning committee.

1.38         It is also important to identify any benefits of the scheme. Following the three strands of sustainability the benefits are broken down into economic, social and environmental.

 

1.39         The proposal would deliver up to 93 dwellings of which 38 would be affordable. The level of affordable housing is policy compliant. The proposal would be consistent with the Framework in so far as it seeks to significantly boost the supply of homes. Charnwood Borough Council give significant weight to these benefits within their planning balance. As weight is already given to Charnwood’s decision this has not been directly weighed in the balance as not to ‘double count’ any benefits.

 

1.40         The wider proposal would result in economic benefits through the construction of the scheme albeit for a temporary period (applicable to the HBBC administrative area). Additionally, the residents of the proposed development would provide ongoing support to local services.

 

1.41         The social benefit to the area and also to the borough would be from the wider scheme by the provision of dwellings but there is not any identified social benefit from the development within HBBC. This benefit therefore has been captured within Charnwood’s assessment of the application. As weight is already given to Charnwood’s decision this has not been directly weighed in the balance as not to ‘double count’ any benefits.

 

1.42         Some environmental benefits would be provided such as the pruning of trees within the protected tree line and the removal and replacement of unclassified trees to promote the vitality of the tree line and biodiversity of the site.

 

1.43         Paragraph 15 of the Framework sets out that planning should be genuinely plan-led, and amongst other matters should provide a platform for local people to shape their surroundings. The MNP has sought to do this. Granting planning permission for a development that would conflict with the strategy within a relatively recently made neighbourhood plan found to be in conformity with the Local Plan would undermine the neighbourhood planning process and the plan-led system as a whole, contrary to the policies within the Framework.

 

1.44         The harm identified is the conflict with Policy DM4 as the proposed works within HBBC does not fall within the a-e criteria. Para 14 of the NPPF advises where an impact has been identified this is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Para 11 of the NPPF advises that where policies are considered to be out of date, the presumption in favour of development applies unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

 

1.45         Overall, the adverse impact of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies within the Framework as a whole. Therefore, I conclude that there are no material considerations which indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan.

 

Recommendation:-

 

The recommendation within the December committee report has been changed and this application is now recommended for refusal for the following reason:

 

The development, due to its location in the open countryside, would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and have an urbanising impact on the site. The proposal would have a significant adverse effect upon the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy DM4 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Development Plan Policies (2016), Policy M1 of the Markfield Neighbourhood Plan (2021) and this harm would significantly outweigh the benefits when considered against the Framework as a whole.

Application for residential development of up to 93 dwellings, public open space, landscaping and SuDS (outline – access only) (cross boundary application with Charnwood Borough Council).

 

Attention was drawn to the amended recommendation in the late items.

 

An objector and a parish council representative spoke on this application.

 

It was moved by Councillor Furlong, seconded by Councillor Bray and unanimously

 

RESOLVED – permission be refused for the following reason:

 

The development, due to its location in the open countryside, would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and have an urbanising impact on the site. The proposal would have a significant adverse effect upon the intrinsic character and the beauty of the countryside. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy DM4 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Development Plan Policies (2016), policy M1 of the Markfield Neighbourhood Plan (2021) and this harm would significantly outweigh the benefits when considered against the framework as a whole.