Agenda item

Outline application for up to 126 dwellings (all matters except access).

 

Late items received after publication of agenda:

 

Amendments to Planning Conditions

 

1.               All the planning conditions were agreed to by the Applicant on 11 August 2025.

 

2.               The Parameters Plan was removed from Condition 03 (Approved Plans) and included in a new planning condition (Condition 28) that is detailed as follows:

 

“28        The details of the layout of the development within any forthcoming Reserved Matters application shall have regard for the indicative layout detailed within the Parameter Plan (005-01C) (02-1644) (submitted: 12.05.2025) and any application that departs from this layout shall be accompanied by appropriate justification within a Design and Access Statement.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development in accordance with Policies DM1, DM4, and DM10 of the adopted Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (2016).”

 

3.               Planning Condition 05 (Land Contamination) was amended to remove the reference of ‘around the existing electricity substation’ at the request of the Applicant.

 

4.               Planning Conditions 08 (Noise Protection of Proposed Dwellings), 09 (Infiltration Testing), and 10 (Surface Water Drainage Scheme) have been amended to secure these details at any forthcoming Reserved Matters application rather than prior to the commencement of development.

 

5.               Planning Condition 15 (Electronic Communications) has been removed from the planning application because The Building Regulations 2010 (as amended) secures the provision of gigabit broadband infrastructure and connectivity within the construction of all new homes in England.

 

6.               Planning Condition 21 (Tree Protection Works) was amended to secure details that protect the existing trees within the site within any forthcoming Reserved Matters application. As a result, Tree Protection Plan V3 (8306) was removed from Condition 03 (Approved Plans).

 

7.               Planning Condition 22 (Public Open Space) was amended to state the following:

 

“22.    Any forthcoming Reserved Matters application shall include details of the

precise boundaries and quantities of the public open space typologies across the site in accordance with the requirements detailed in Policy 19 of the adopted Core Strategy (2009).”

 

8.               Planning Condition 26 (External Lighting) has been removed from the planning application because this condition duplicates Planning Condition 18 (External Lighting).

 

Responses from Members of the Public

 

9.               Since the creation of the Committee Report, one further objection has been received to the planning application on the following grounds:

 

·                The Committee Report does not reference planning permission 02/00685/COU, which was for the creation of a golf course and ancillary facilities including a clubhouse. This planning permission included a Section 106 Agreement and a Section 278 Agreement for a ghost island right turn lane onto Station Road. The current proposal conflicts with the legal agreements within this previous planning permission

 

·                The planning application 24/00769/FUL for nine single storey holiday lodges, which is referred to in Paragraph 3.7 of the Committee Report has not been determined by the Council at this stage, and is to be determined by the Planning Committee on Tuesday 12 August 2025

 

·                The development fails to have proper regard for impact of the permitted use of the Kyngs Golf and Country Club on the residential amenity of the future occupiers of the scheme

 

Market Bosworth Parish Council

 

10.            On 07 August 2025, Market Bosworth Parish Council wrote to Cllr Bray and the members of the Planning Committee. The Parish Council stated that the development proposal does not accord with the Policies DC1, CE3, CE4, CE5, CE6, and BD4 of the Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Plan (2025) and urged all members of the Planning Committee to recognise the importance of neighbourhood plans and the role the community plays in ensuring appropriate development can be delivered in appropriate places.

 

The Case Officer notes that Paragraph 8.154 of the Committee Report confirms that the proposal does not accord with Policies CE1, CE3, and CE5 within the Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Plan (2025). The recommendation for the determination of the planning application in light of this conflict is detailed within the Planning Balance section of the Report from Paragraph 8.231.

 

Ultimately, the ‘tilted’ balance is engaged within the determination of this development, and therefore, in accordance with Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), planning permission should be granted unless 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.

 

Market Bosworth Landing Strip

 

11.            It is understood that contrary to the assertions of Paragraph 8.61 of the Committee Report, the landing strip within the site was still utilised by light aircraft most weekends in the summer.

 

12.            Following further discussions with the Conservation Officer in light of this, the Conservation Officer confirmed that this does not change the level of heritage interest afforded to the landing strip.

 

13.            The Conservation Officer stated their professional opinion remained that the landing strip was not of the level of heritage significant to warrant identification as a non-designated heritage asset, and it would not be included on the Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council’s Local Heritage List when considered against the Council’s Heritage Criteria, which was formally adopted in 2017.

 

14.            Nevertheless, in accordance with Paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework, a balanced judgement is required in weighing applications that directly affect non-designated heritage assets, having regard to the scale of the harm or loss and the significance of the asset.

 

15.            The development results in the loss of the landing strip, and it is not considered that this impact can be avoided. Whilst the landing strip is considered to be a feature of some local heritage interest, the overall benefits of the development are still considered to outweigh the loss of the heritage interest afforded to the landing strip in these site-specific circumstances.

 

Bosworth Railway Line

 

16.            Since the publication of the Committee Report, further concerns have been raised in relation to the development’s impact on the Bosworth Railway Line.

 

Case Officer Comments:

 

“The detailed design of the development is not being sought for approval at this stage, so the proximity of the built form and the extent of the impact of the scheme on the Battlefield Line and the bridge cannot be fully determined at this stage. Therefore, the Council still retains control and scrutiny over the development to assess this impact further at the Reserved Matters stage of the development.

 

The officer recommendation for the outline planning application includes a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) prior to the commencement of the development, which requires a scheme to be approved by the Council to mitigate the proposal’s impact on existing premises and the environment in the surrounding area.

 

 A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) is also likely to be secured via planning condition by the Local Highway Authority following the resolution of the outstanding highways matters. This was included as Condition 20 of the planning application 24/00560/HYB at the Land off Station Road, Market Bosworth.

 

In addition to this, any works within the site would have to comply with the requirements of British Standards, and the developer of the site would be liable for any harm caused to the Battlefield Line or the bridge.”

 

Trees

 

17.            Paragraphs 8.91 to 8.97 of the Committee Report include an assessment of the proposed impact of the development on existing trees and hedgerows based on the details within the Arboricultural Impact Assessment. However, it is noted that none of the existing trees or hedges are affected by the proposed works to facilitate the accesses into the site.

 

18.            As this outline planning application only seeks planning permission for the proposed access to the site, the impact to these existing trees and hedgerows is indicative and therefore cannot be considered as part of the determination of this outline planning application.

 

19.            The amended wording of Planning Condition 21 (Tree Protection Works) is considered to ensure that the existing protected trees and hedgerows that positively contribute to the character of the area are protected.

 

Highways Matters

 

20.            The Applicant is currently in the process of addressing the outstanding concerns raised by the Local Highway Authority. 

 

21.            Paragraph 8.188 of the Committee Report states that, based on the records of the Local Highway Authority, no Personal Injury Collisions (PICs) were recorded along the length of Station Road during the last five years. This information was received by Leicestershire County Council on 06 March 2025.

 

22.            It is understood that, since this time, a Personal Injury Collision (PIC) has recently occurred near St. Peter’s Primary School on Station Road, which is 350m east of the access to the proposed development, on 26 June 2025

 

23.            A single Personal Injury Collision is not considered to be representative of a trend or pattern. The Local Highway Authority stated on 22 July 2025 that they did not consider the scheme to have any wider highway safety implications, nor to exacerbate any existing highway safety concerns

 

24.            No further late items have been received.

Outline application for up to 126 dwellings (all matters reserved except access).

 

Two objectors, the agent, and a representative of the parish council spoke on this application.

 

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, members expressed concern about the visual impact due to lack of landscaping, the proposed development being contrary to the Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Development Plan, the proximity to the Battlefield Line, drainage, highway safety. It was moved by Councillor Bray and seconded by Councillor Cook that permission be refused, with the wording of the reasons for refusal delegated to the Planning Manager in consultation with the chair of the Planning Committee and the mover and seconder of the motion. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

 

RESOLVED –

 

(i)            Planning permission be refused;

 

(ii)          Wording of the reasons for refusal be delegated to the Planning Manager in consultation with the chair of the Planning Committee and Councillors Bray and Cook as mover and seconder of the  motion.