a strategy for growth and change - north west leicestershire

www.nwleics.gov.uk

A Strategy For Growth And Change

North West Leicestershire Local Development Framework - Core Strategy Further Consultation

November 2008

Planning Policy Team, North West Leicestershire District Council,Council Offi ces, Whitwick Road, Coalville, Leicestershire, LE67 3FJ.

This document is available in other formats on request

OUR VISIONNorth West Leicestershire will be a place where people and

businesses feel they belong and are proud to call home

Foreword Councillor Nicholas Rushton Cabinet Member for Place Shaping North West Leicestershire has a proud history of change and in the coming years we expect to see even more change. North West Leicestershire’s location at the heart of the midlands means it is perfectly placed to continue as a thriving economy providing homes and jobs for local people. This is one of the reasons the Government has identified us as a growth point over the next fifteen or so years. If this growth is to be successful and sustainable we need to have a clear and agreed framework for how it will take place. This is the job of this document, the Local Development Framework Core Strategy. The Framework suggests how we can accommodate 12,200 new homes in the district, together with the infrastructure needed, and looks at how we need to manage development in our towns and villages. The next years will be exciting for North West Leicestershire. Housing growth brings with it fantastic opportunities to revitalise our town centres as great places for the future, only by attracting new people to live and work in the district can we ensure this happens as development brings more potential customers to our district’s shops and businesses and new development means more investment in infrastructure. Our Vision is to make sure North West Leicestershire is a place where people and businesses feel they belong and are proud to call home. A key way of achieving this is to get as many views as possible on our proposals for how development takes place. Please take the time to read through the Local Development Framework and tell us what you think.

CONTENTS SECTION PAGE

NO 1 Background 1 2 What has happened so far? 1 3 What is the purpose of this consultation? 2 4 How to respond to this consultation 2 5 What are the next steps? 36 Issue 1 – A Vision for North West Leicestershire 37 Issue 2 – How can we realise this Vision? 5 8 Issue 3 – What should be the development strategy for

North West Leicestershire? 7

8 Issue 3a - In which settlements should new development take place?

7

8 Issue 3b - How much development should take place across the district and in the settlements identified for new development?

11

9 Issue 4 – What should our approach be to the Green Wedge in Coalville?

17

10 Issue 5 – Which areas or sites should be identified for development?

18

11 Housing Issues 29 12 Issue 6 – How much affordable housing should be

sought? 29

13 Issue 7 – How should we meet the needs of Gypsies and Travellers?

31

14 Issue 8 – What should our housing strategy be? 32 15 Economic Issues 33 16 Issue 9 – What approach should we take to meeting

Regional and Sub Regional economic needs? 33

17 Issue 10 – Which site or location should be identified for strategic distribution uses?

35

18 Issue 11 – How should we seek to strengthen the local economy?

36

19 Issue 12 – What should our approach be in respect of East Midlands Airport?

40

20 Issue 13 – What should our strategy be for our town centres?

42

21 Issue 14 – Should the Core Strategy identify Town Centre boundaries?

44

22 Issue 15 – What should our overall approach be in respect of transport issues?

44

23 Issue 16 – Delivering well designed, high quality sustainable developments

46

24 Issue 17 – Securing new infrastructure 47 25 Issue 18 – How should we approach the issue of climate

change? 49

26 Issue 19 – Green Infrastructure 51 27 Issue 20 – Priority Neighbourhoods 52

1 BACKGROUND 1.1 North West Leicestershire District Council is required to set out its planning

policies for the district in its Local Development Framework (LDF). The LDF will comprise a number of different documents (Development Plan Documents). The key document will be a Core Strategy Development Plan Document. This will set out the spatial vision and objectives for North West Leicestershire and will provide a framework with which future Development Plan Documents will have to conform.

1.2 The Core Strategy will have to conform to both the Regional Spatial Strategy and

national policies, whilst reflecting local issues and circumstances. 2 WHAT HAS HAPPENED SO FAR? 2.1 The following outlines briefly what has happened so far:

• November 2005 - Issues and Options Consultation document published as a first step towards preparing the Core Strategy. This consultation generated some 67 responses covering a range of issues. Responses to the consultation can be viewed here.

• Autumn 2006 - a number of meetings/workshops took place with a range of key stakeholders during the autumn of 2006.

• December 2006 - those respondents to the Issues and Options consultation were invited to attend a workshop at Ashby de la Zouch to discuss a range of issues. More details of these can be viewed here

• Summer 2007 – a further consultation which identified a number of key issues and possible Vision and objectives. The consultation document and the responses can be viewed here.

2.2 Work has also continued on providing an up to date evidence base. A list of the

various studies which have been undertaken to date to inform the evidence base is included at Appendix 1. We would like to know if you think there is anything missing from the evidence base?

2.3 Since the 2007 consultation a number of changes have been made to the LDF

system, including there no longer being a requirement for a Preferred Options stage. In the light of these changes the Council has revised its Local Development Scheme (LDS) following discussions with the Government Office and the Planning Inspectorate. This has yet to be finally agreed but we anticipate that this will happen shortly. A copy of the proposed LDS can be viewed here.

2.4 In addition, since the 2007 consultation, the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) has

continued to move forward. Proposed changes were published by the Secretary of State in July 2008. The proposed changes of direct relevance to North West Leicestershire include:

• A small increase in the number of dwellings required (12,200 compared to 12,000 in the draft Plan) (new Policy 13);

• Identification of the number of pitches required to meet the needs of gypsies and travellers (Policy 16);

1

• A need to make provision of sites for Strategic Distribution, including within the Leicester and Leicestershire Housing Market Area (new Policy 21);

• Removal of any suggested extension of the Nottingham-Derby Green Belt into North West Leicestershire (Policy Three Cities SRS 2);

• Deletion of a specific policy concerning Green Wedges • An increased emphasis upon the key role to be played by Coalville (Three

Cities SRS Policy 3). 2.5 The Core Strategy will need to take account of these changes together with the

fact that the RSS is to be subject to an immediate partial review, which will include new housing requirements.

3 WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS CONSULTATION? 3.1 This consultation is intended to share with you our emerging thoughts on a

number of key issues. In particular, we are seeking your views on our approach to:

• The Development Strategy; • Issues associated with how much development should be planned for and

where it could take place; • The Green Wedge in Coalville; • A number of other housing issues including affordable housing and

provision for gypsies and travellers; • East Midlands Airport and Donington Racetrack and • Town Centres and Shopping

4 HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS CONSULTATION 4.1 This consultation is part of the ongoing consultation we are undertaking as part of

the preparation of the Core Strategy. In this document we have identified a range of issues and set out the approach we favour at this time in response to these issues. We would welcome your views on our suggested approach. If you do not agree with the approach we are suggesting then we would like to know why and how you think we should respond.

4.2 To assist you in responding, throughout this document there are a series of

questions we have asked which we would welcome your views on. 4.3 In addition, to this document we have also prepared a number of background

papers which can be viewed at our website and by clicking on the links from this document [to be added]. If you are unable to get access to the internet we have placed copies of all documents at the various public libraries throughout the district as well as at the Council Offices in Coalville. These background papers include:

• Housing; • Employment; • Green Wedge; • A District Profile

2

4.4 We have also included links to a number of other important documents which provide more background and information than we can include in this document.

4.5 To respond to this consultation we would like you to respond via our online

consultation. If you cannot access the internet then please contact us and we will send copies of representations forms to you. In all cases, whether responding via the internet or in paper form please provide us with a summary of your representation as the helps us to respond to and fully understand your comments.

Any comments not made via the website should be sent to: Planning Policy and Sustainability Planning and Development North West Leicestershire district Council Council Offices Coalville LEICS LE67 3FJ

4.6 All comments are to be received by 5.00 PM on 22 December 2008. 4.7 We have included as Appendix 16 a Glossary of terms used in this document

and the various other documents referred to in order to provide greater clarification.

5 WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS? 5.1 Following on from this consultation we will prepare a Draft Submission version of

the Core Strategy. We will consult on this in autumn 2009 with a view to submitting the Core Strategy to the Secretary of State by the end of 2009. A Public Examination to consider the Core Strategy will then take place in summer 2010 and we aim to adopt it early in 2011.

5.2 As part of the requirements of producing the Core Strategy, the stages outlined

above will need to be accompanied by a Sustainability Appraisal. This is a process that considers the effects of proposals against an agreed set of objectives representing key sustainability indicators in respect of the environment, economy and society. The process provides a means to evaluate proposals and to make informed judgements about their contribution towards or away from the agreed sustainability objectives. We have produced an initial Scoping Report as part of this process but the proposals contained in this document have yet to be subjected to Sustainability Appraisal.

6 ISSUE 1 - A VISION FOR THE FUTURE OF NORTH WEST LEICESTERSHIRE

Background 6.1 The Core Strategy will need to set out the Vision for the district and how the

Local Development Framework can help realise the Vision over the period of the Core Strategy (i.e. to 2026).

3

What has happened so far?

2005 Issues and Options consultation We sought views on what the spatial vision for the district could be. Response There were a number of suggestions for what could be included in the Vision, but most of these concentrated on specific issues rather than setting out a broad vision. 2007 Additional consultation We put forward three options for what the Vision might say. Response Of the three options put forward Option 1 received the most support, although there was also support for the other two options as well.

What is our favoured approach?

6.2 Since undertaking the consultation in 2007, the Council and the Local Strategic

Partnership (Partnership for Improvement in North West Leicestershire) has completed the Sustainable Community Strategy for North West Leicestershire. This has included developing a Vision for the District which states:

“North West Leicestershire will be a place where people and businesses feel they belong and are proud to call home” North West Leicestershire will recognise the importance business plays in a strong community & will encourage innovation, helping maintain the district’s diverse business base. North West Leicestershire will embrace new and emerging ways of doing things to become a leader in green and sustainable communities. North West Leicestershire will build on its unique geographic advantages and infrastructure strengths, while providing enough quality,affordable housing. North West Leicestershire will be synonymous with strong integrated communities which embrace the need to provide a sustainable, safe and secure place for all.”

6.3 In view of the fact that this Vision has been developed since the 2007

consultation we undertook on the Core Strategy and that it has been done in consultation with the local community, we believe that this is the Vision that should be used in the Core Strategy.

4

6.4 The Vision can also be expressed in spatial terms by the ‘Sustainability Triangle’ set out below, which we have developed as part of the Sustainable Community Strategy.

6.5 In essence, this can be summarised as:

• A strong and successful business sector in and around East Midlands Airport (together with major employment elsewhere) which reflects the location and regional importance of this area at the centre of the three Cities sub-region

• Enhancements to the environment especially in the area of the National Forest

• Delivering significant new housing growth to the district with the emphasis upon the Coalville area, which will bring quality housing, including affordable housing and

• Strong and cohesive communities will be at the heart of the vision

Question 1 - Do you support our favoured Vision?

7 ISSUE 2 - HOW CAN WE REALISE THIS VISION?

Background 7.1 The Core Strategy will need to set out the spatial objectives which will underpin

the various policies of the Core Strategy.


2005 Issues and Options consultation We put forward a list of possible spatial objectives and sought views on these.

5

Response There was some support for the list put forward, although most responses concentrated on specific issues rather than looking broader. 2007 Additional consultation We put forward a schedule of possible objectives and sought views on these, including how many objectives we should have. Response There was no consensus on the number of objectives with many people saying there were too many whilst others suggested increasing the number. There was no overwhelming priority objective whilst a number of people referred to the lack of objectives in respect of ensuring an adequate supply of housing and lack of reference to Green Infrastructure, specific infrastructure and local services.


7.2 Given the lack of consensus from our previous consultations, we have not

developed any options but instead set out below what our favoured approach is having reviewed the responses to the summer 2007 consultation and the general objectives in the Community Strategy.

SO1 Concentrate the majority of new development in the most sustainable

locations, giving priority to previously developed land, in locations that have good access to services and facilities and public transport and / or the potential to contribute to the re-opening of the National Forest passenger rail line

SO2 Promote the appropriate development of the National Forest including realising the leisure, tourism and economic potential of the National Forest consistent with other objectives

SO3 Minimise the effects of, and the districts contribution towards, climate change, particularly minimising the risk from flooding and reducing the districts carbon footprint

SO4 Protect and enhance the character and appearance of the built, historic and cultural environment

SO5 Protect and enhance the landscape and biodiversity of the district, particularly the Charnwood Forest, National Forest and River Mease Special Area of Conservation

SO6 Require that new developments are of a high quality design in order to create attractive and safe places in which to live, work and play and to create a distinct local identify based upon the character and local distinctiveness of the district, particularly the National Forest where new development will be designed to reflect the forest setting, including the provision of tree planting

SO7 Continue to diversify the districts economic base and meet the existing and future business needs of the district, including identifying sufficient land for employment purposes

6

SO8 Meet the different housing needs of the community by providing an adequate amount and range of housing, including affordable housing

SO9 Enhance the vitality and viability of Coalville and other centres across the district, particularly the revitalisation of Coalville town centre to perform as a vibrant sub regional centre and a contemporary market town

SO10 Encourage the sustainable diversification of the rural economy and protect and enhance the network of local centres and rural services

SO11 Meet the operational needs of the East Midlands Airport whilst avoiding significant harm and securing mitigation for any unavoidable damage to the environment and developing sustainable transportation options to access the airport.

SO12 Reduce social exclusion and deprivation, particularly in the Priority Neighbourhoods

SO13 Create healthy and strong communities and enhance provision of and access to ‘green infrastructure’ and sport, recreation and open spaces

SO14 Enhance and promote access to services and facilities by alternative modes of transport

Question 2 - Do you support our favoured objectives?

8 ISSUE 3 - WHAT SHOULD BE THE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR

NORTH WEST LEICESTERSHIRE?

BACKGROUND 8.1 The Core Strategy will need to set out the District Council’s proposals for the

distribution of development during the plan period. This will be one of the key decisions for the Core Strategy and decisions taken in respect of this issue will have a direct influence on later policies in the Core Strategy and other subsequent Development Plan Documents. In considering what the development strategy should be there are two key issues which need to be considered: • In which settlements should new development take place? • How much development should take place across the district and in the

settlements identified for new development?

Each of these is considered in more detail below.

Issue 3a - In which settlements should new development take place? What has happened so far?

2005 Issues and Options consultation We noted that Coalville was identified in Policy 5 of the adopted Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) as a Sub-Regional Centre and hence to be the focus for new development. We also suggested that Ashby de la Zouch be identified as a “Market Town” in accordance with Policy 6 of the RSS and that Castle Donington, Ibstock, Kegworth and Measham could be designated as “Rural Centres” in accordance with Strategy Policy 2c of the Leicestershire, Leicester

7

and Rutland Structure Plan (Structure Plan). Response There was general support for development in the settlements referred to, although it was also suggested that Castle Donington should be identified as a Market Town. 2007 Additional consultation We suggested deleting reference to Market towns and rural centres, and instead refer to Ashby de la Zouch, Castle Donington, Ibstock, Kegworth and Measham as Rural Towns. We also suggested that outside of Coalville and the Rural Towns that development should be limited to those settlements with a range of services and facilities and that development should be restricted to that required to meet Local Needs. Response Generally there was overwhelming support for the suggested Rural Towns, although a small number of respondents suggested that alternative settlements should also be included, including Ellistown and Moira. It was also suggested that the proximity of Albert Village to the sub-regional centre of Swadlincote should also be recognised and hence development there should not be restricted to Local Needs. There was also support for defining Local Needs settlements, although it was suggested that the definition put forward was to narrow.

What are the options we now wish to consult on?

8.2 In addition to the Options we have previously put forward, we have considered

the suggestion that Ellistown and Moira be identified as Rural Towns. We have concluded that neither can be regarded as Rural Towns. In respect of Ellistown, it cannot be said to serve a hinterland in view of its proximity to both Coalville and Ibstock (rather it is part of the hinterland of both Coalville and Ibstock). In respect of Moira, whilst it has a reasonable range of services it does not have a general medical practice and the services generally are largely centred around the Norris Hill area. Whilst there is some public transport provision, due to the particular physical characteristics of Moira large parts of the settlement are somewhat distant from the facilities identified and the only bus service which connects the whole settlement together runs only once every 90 minutes.

8.3 In respect of the issue of potentially including Albert Village, this is a small

settlement with few facilities and hence would not be considered a suitable location for major development. However, the issue is complicated by the fact that it abuts the boundary with South Derbyshire and in particular is close to the urban area of Swadlincote. We are aware that South Derbyshire District Council is considering the potential future direction of development in and around Swadlincote. Thus the consideration of any development that could take place in North West Leicestershire is very much linked to the approach to be taken by South Derbyshire District Council. We are talking to South Derbyshire District

8

Council about this issue but at this stage we do not propose to include Albert Village within the development strategy as a suitable location for new housing development, but will keep this matter under review.


8.4 Our favoured approach is to identify the settlements of Coalville, Ashby de la

Zouch, Castle Donington, Ibstock, Kegworth and Measham as the focus for new development with those outside of Coalville identified as Rural Towns.

8.5 Outside of the Rural Towns we recognise that to restrict all development to only

Local Needs raises potential issues about the long term sustainability of our smaller communities. We have concluded , therefore, that providing there is a reasonable level of services available, that some of the larger villages (Sustainable Villages) may be suitable for a limited amount of infill development in addition to Local Needs development. In the remaining settlements which are not so well served, we will only allow development that is required to meet a local need.

8.6 To identify what constitutes a Sustainable Village we have had regard to the

criteria used to identify Rural Towns. These are: • Primary school; • Post office; • General Store; • GP Practice; • Chemist (if not part of GP Practice); • Leisure and Community Facilities (not defined); • Employment and • Bus service (defined as 15 minutes or better Monday-Saturday day time,

evening service Monday-Saturday and connections to one other major centre and lower order centres in the vicinity)

8.7 It would not be reasonable to expect a lower order settlement to have such a

wide range of facilities as a Rural Town. However, it would be reasonable to expect that such settlements have essential services/facilities which meet the day-to-day needs of local communities. The following are considered to be essential services: • Primary school; • General Store (either with or without a post office); • Leisure and Community Facilities • Bus service

8.8 To be considered as a Sustainable Village we will require that a settlement has

three out of the four facilities identified above subject to the clarifications provided below.

8.9 By way of clarification ‘Leisure and Community Facilities’ are defined as a Village

hall or similar venue (e.g. a church hall) available for community use on a permanent basis; a recreation/sports ground available for public use on a permanent basis and a public house.

9

8.10 In respect of bus services again the level of provision would not be expected to

be as good as higher order settlements. Therefore, a suitable level of bus service would be one that has an hourly Monday-Saturday daytime service (i.e. 7am to 6pm) to one or more higher order centres within or outside the district.

8.11 At the present time the settlements listed below would satisfy these criteria and

we propose to keep this list under review as part of our Annual Monitoring Report so that it is clear as to which settlements may be considered appropriate for infill development at any point in time. If a settlement loses facilities at some point in the future then we would no longer regard it as a Sustainable Village. Similarly if new facilities were provided in a settlement which meant the settlement met the test of having essential services we would regard this as a Sustainable Village.

• Appleby Magna • Belton • Blackfordby • Breedon-on-the-Hill • Diseworth • Donsithorpe • Ellistown • Heather • Long Whatton • Moira • Oakthorpe • Packington • Ravenstone • Swannington • Worthington

8.12 In Sustainable Villages we propose to restrict development to infill sites of no more than about 0.1Ha, although we will also have regard to the specific circumstances of the site concerned and development required to meet a Local Need. We have looked again at how we define Local Needs and have sought to refine and develop it from that suggested in the 2007 consultation.

8.13 Elsewhere development would still be allowed to meet Local Needs or in the

case of housing, an affordable housing exceptions site. 8.14 These provisions are reflected in the Development Strategy set out following

paragraph 8.30.

Question 3 - Do you support our favoured approach? Question 4 - Are there any options which we have not considered?

10

Issue 3b - How much development should take place across the district and in the settlements identified for new development? Background

8.15 In considering how much development should be accommodated within the

district the key consideration will be the requirements of the RSS. In respect of housing the RSS identifies a requirement for 12,200 dwellings to be located mainly in Coalville, including Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUE) as necessary. There is no specific requirement in respect of employment land.


2005 Issues and Options consultation At that time we identified a residual requirement of 1250 dwellings for the period 2005-2016. We also sought views on what would constitute an adequate supply of employment land in the absence of any guidance in the then RSS. We raised questions about what the balance should be in respect of new housing between Coalville and Ashby-de-la-Zouch and what would be the appropriate scale of development in the possible Rural Centres. Response Concerns were raised about whether the level of housing provision suggested would be sufficient. No suggestions were put forward in terms of what would be an adequate supply of employment land in numerical terms. There were a number of responses to the issue of development in individual settlements but no suggestions as to the actual amount of development that should be included in specific settlements. 2007 Additional consultation We put forward six options for the future direction for development across the district. We sought views on the level of employment land provision which should be made including a suggested methodology. Response There was overwhelming support for Option 1 (The Coalville Focus Option). There was also support for both Options 2 (the Coalville and single Rural Town focus) and 5 (the dispersed option). The methodology suggested for calculating employment land requirements was opposed by the majority of respondents.

`

11


How much development should be allowed for across the district? 8.16 The District Council is supportive of the level of housing growth proposed in the

RSS. This growth which, coupled with a focus upon Coalville as a sub-regional centre, provides a unique opportunity to contribute towards the regeneration of the Coalville urban area, including the Town Centre whose revitalisation is a key Council priority.

8.17 In the period up to 31st March 2008 some 2610 dwellings had been built.

Therefore, there will be a need to make provision for a minimum of about 9600 dwellings up to 2026.

8.18 However, the RSS will also be subject to an immediate review to cover the period

to 2031. Amongst the issues required to be addressed is that of new housing figures to take account of new household projections. Our Core Strategy, therefore, will need to consider how sufficient flexibility can be built in to avoid the need for an early review of the Core Strategy. For example, it may be appropriate to regard these revised RSS figures as the absolute minimum level of provision required and to ensure that the level of provision exceeds the RSS requirement and includes provision for sites to be developed beyond the end of the plan period via an appropriate phasing mechanism. The Council is of the view that any additional growth that may be identified in the RSS review would need to be fully justified and take account of any implications for the provision of infrastructure. This is reflected in the possible Development Strategy outlined in paragraph 8.30.

Question 5 - Do you agree that for housing development we should consider 9600 dwellings as the minimum level of provision to be made? Question 6 - Do you agree that the Core Strategy should address potential development needs beyond the end of the plan period? Have you any suggestions as to how this can be achieved?

8.19 As noted the RSS does not provide any guidance in respect of the amount of

employment land required, either across the region or for individual districts. The LeicesterShire Economic Partnership (LSEP) has commissioned PACEC and Warwick Business Management Limited to undertake an Employment Land Study for the Leicester and Leicestershire Housing Market Area. At the time that this consultation document was being prepared the study had not been completed. However, its initial findings suggest that there is a limited need for additional employment land in the district. This is consistent with a number of other studies which have been undertaken, including one specifically for North West Leicestershire. This partly reflects that fact that previous planning documents included very large provision for employment land which have not yet been taken up.

8.20 The LSEP study also suggests that any new provision would be best made as

part of the sustainable urban extensions (SUE) referred to in the RSS. It is

12

suggested that such provision should be in the order of 20-25 Hectares, although it is not clear as to whether this could be on more than one SUE.

How much development should be allowed for in individual settlements?

8.21 In the 2007 Additional Consultation we put forward six options. However, at that

time we did not put forward any suggestions in respect of the possible scale of development in individual settlements. We have considered the responses received. There was overwhelming support for the Coalville focus option (Option 1). Whilst there was some support for the Dispersed Option (Option 5) we have concluded that this (together with the New Settlement option (Option 6)) are contrary to the RSS and have therefore been rejected. The Coalville and a single Rural town focus option (Option 2) has also been rejected because it too is not in conformity with the RSS and because to some extent it is similar to the Coalville focus with significant amount in a Rural Town option (Option 3).

8.22 Therefore, at this stage we are continuing to consider the following four options:

• The Coalville focus option (Referred to from now on as Option 1); • Coalville focus with significant amount in a Rural Town (Option 2); • Coalville focus with a significant amount in two of the Rural Towns

(Option 3) • Coalville focus with a significant amount in two of the Rural Towns

(Option 4) (with different emphasis from option 3) 8.23 We have now developed different development scenarios for each of these

options. These are:

Settlement Option 1 – The Coalville Focus Option

Option 2 - Coalville focus with significant amount in a Rural Town

Option 3 - Coalville focus with a significant amount in two of the Rural Towns

Option 4 – Coalville focus with significant amount in two of the Rural Towns

Coalville 9800 dwellings

8000 dwellings

5400 dwellings

7700 dwellings

Ashby de la Zouch

500 dwellings

2400 dwellings

1800 dwellings

500 dwellings

Castle Donington

500 dwellings

350 dwellings 1200 dwellings

1000 dwellings

Ibstock 100 dwellings

100 dwellings 1000 dwellings

1000 dwellings

Kegworth 50 dwellings 75 dwellings 800 dwellings 400 dwellings Measham 50 dwellings 75 dwellings 800 dwellings 400 dwellings

8.24 It should be noted that the figures exceed the development required to meet the

identified needs to 2026. The reasons for this are to allow a certain amount of flexibility in the event of there being an increase in housing provision as a result of an early review of the RSS and also to plan for additional infrastructure provision that would be necessary in such an event.

13

8.25 In arriving at the potential scale of development for the settlements concerned we

have had regard to the results of our Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). The SHLAA is something which the Government requires all local planning authorities to undertake to inform the preparation of their Local Development Frameworks (further details about SHLAA’s can be viewed here). Further details of this can be viewed in the Housing Background paper. We can use the work undertaken so far on the SHLAA to ensure that there are sufficient potential housing sites available to realise any of the development scenarios.

8.26 It is important that before deciding the most appropriate amount of development

for each settlement, that we understand the potential implications of each scenario, particularly in respect of the impact upon infrastructure and services. Therefore, we are currently in discussion with infrastructure providers and undertaking a number of exercises to understand this. In respect of transport issues the Highways Agency has developed a land use and transportation model (PTOLEMY) to assess the implications of different policy options. The Council has commissioned the use of the PTOLEMY model to identify the potential transport implications of each of these scenarios. This will identify any issues which could result in locations/settlements either not being suitable in transport terms for the scale of development considered and/or the need for new or changed transport infrastructure to make the development scenario(s) acceptable in transport terms.

8.27 In addition, the Council and the Local Strategic Partnership are also working with

infrastructure providers, such as the Primary Care Trust and Leicestershire County Council, to identify the potential implications arising from these scenarios. For example, we are already aware of concerns about the capacity of health care facilities in both Coalville and Ashby-de-la-Zouch. In addition, there are issues about the long term viability of the Hermitage Leisure Centre in terms of its physical capacity and fitness for purpose which the Council will need to address. The level of new growth anticipated to take place in Coalville will add to these issues. In seeking to address these issues we will need to consider the possibility of developing a new leisure centre either on the existing site or elsewhere, possibly as part of the major new housing development proposed.

Question 7 - We would welcome your views on these development scenarios including any potential infrastructure issues about which you are aware and which could influence the final decision on which scenario is most appropriate.


8.28 Until we have completed all of the necessary work we cannot be absolutely

certain which approach we will follow. It should also be appreciated that whilst four development scenarios have been identified there are many other possible scenarios. It could thus be that the final version of the Core Strategy will not match up exactly with any of these scenarios.

8.29 However, at the present time we believe that the most appropriate approach is

the Coalville Focus option (i.e. Option 1). This is because:

14

• of the three options it is the option most consistent with the RSS and the identification of Coalville as a Sub-Regional Centre;

• the scale of development envisaged in this scenario would allow Coalville to become a genuine Sub-Regional Centre which is consistent with our aspirations and ambitions for Coaville

• This option can also potentially result in the best reduction in the district’s CO2 emissions.

8.30 Our favoured approach is reflected in the following Development Strategy which

reflects those matters considered under Issues 3a and 3b. At this stage we have not assigned any employment figures as this matter still requires further work.

Favoured Development Strategy

The Council will make provision for a minimum of 9600 dwellings and xxx Hectares of employment land across the district up to 2026. In the event that the review of the Regional Spatial Strategy identifies a level of annual growth to 2026 over and above that currently proposed in the RSS, the Council will only support such growth where it can be demonstrated that the level of infrastructure required to support such development, especially in respect of transport and community facilities, will be forthcoming and at no extra expense to the Council.

To achieve this level of growth the Development Strategy for the district will be focused upon significant growth in the Coalville Urban Area, including the revitalisation of Coalvile Town Centre. This will include making provision for about 9800 dwellings and xxx Hectares of employment land.

Provision will also be made for development elsewhere in accordance with the following priority order:

Rural Towns:

Ashby de la Zouch (500 dwellings, xx Ha employment) Castle Donington (500 dwellings, xx Ha employment) Ibstock (100 dwellings, xx Ha employment) Kegworth (50 dwellings, xx Ha employment) Measham (50 dwellings, xx Ha employment)

Sustainable villages: development will be restricted to infill sites of no more than 0.1Ha, rural affordable housing exceptions sites or local needs developments within those settlements which include three out of four of following services or facilities:

• Primary school; • General Store; • Leisure and Community Facilities (defined as a Village hall or similar

venue available for community use on a permanent basis; a recreation/sports ground available for public use on a permanent basis and a public house)

15

• Bus service (defined as an hourly daytime (i.e. 7am to 6pm) service Monday-Saturday to one or more higher order centres within or outside the district).

For a site to be considered as an infill site the land concerned must not form part of a larger, continuous area of land.

Appendix xxx [not included at this time but referred to in paragraph 8.11 of this consultation document] identifies those villages which as at xxx are Sustainable Villages. This list will be updated and amended as part of the Annual Monitoring Report.

Local Needs Settlements: development will be restricted to either rural affordable housing exceptions sites or local needs development.

In all cases a local need is defined as being:

Housing

• A person, or persons, and their dependents who have resided permanently in the parish, or an adjoining parish, for at least the past five years and who are now in need of new accommodation, which cannot be met for financial reasons from the existing housing stock;

• A person or persons required to live close to another person who satisfies the above criteria and is in essential need of frequent attention and/or care due to age, ill-health and/or infirmity and the property of the person in need of care cannot be adapted for financial or physical reasons;

• A person, or persons, who has resided permanently in the parish, or an adjoining parish, for a period of at least five years in the past fifteen;

• A person, or persons, who are required by virtue of their job to live in close proximity to their place on work, either within the parish or an adjoining parish;

Employment

• A local business already within the parish and seeking modest

expansion; • A new business of an appropriate scale that requires a rural location and/or would diversify the local economy; • A farm diversification scheme that would ensure the continuation of

an existing agricultural enterprise. * All references to Coalville Urban Area are to the un-parished part of the district and includes not only Coalville, but also Donington-le-Heath, Greenhill, Hugglescote, Thringstone and Whitwick and the land between. [For the avoidance of doubt this area is identified on the plan at Appendix 2]

16

Question 8 - Do you support our favoured approach to the Development Strategy? Question 9 - Do you consider that the suggested wording of the Development Strategy is appropriate?

9 ISSUE 4 – WHAT SHOULD BE OUR APPROACH TO THE GREEN WEDGE IN

COALVILLE?

Background 9.1 The adopted Local Plan identifies land between Coaville, Swannington,

Thringstone and Whitwick as a Green Wedge where no new development (save in exceptional circumstances) will be allowed. The purpose of the Green Wedge was originally established as part of the Leicestershire Structure Plan 1991-2006.


2005 Issues and Options consultation We sought views on whether the then Structure Plan policy 5 was adequate to control development in the Green Wedge and what the extent should be of any review of the Green Wedge. Response Overall it was considered that Structure Plan policy 5 provided an adequate basis for controlling development in the Green Wedge. There was general support for reviewing the Green Wedge (specifically from the development industry) on the grounds that it may be a sequentially preferable location. 2007 Additional consultation We did not consult specifically on the Green Wedge. However, in respect of the issue of potential Broad Locations for development we did refer to the possibility of allowing some development in the Green Wedge. Response There was some support for development in the Green wedge.


9.2 The RSS proposes that “A review of existing green wedges or the creation of

new ones in association with development will be carried out through the local development framework process.”

9.3 Therefore, the Council needs to undertake a review of the existing Green Wedge.

Such an assessment has been undertaken and is set out in the Green Wedge background paper. This concludes that, having regard to the original stated

17

purpose of Green Wedges, that it can no longer be justified. The background paper sets out a number of options for how we might consider the future of the Green Wedge area. These include the possibility of developing on some parts of the Green Wedge (all though not all of it) in recognition of the fact that the Council will need to make significant provision for new housing and employment as outlined in Section 10 below. However, other options include retaining some or all of the Green Wedge as some form of open area, for example a Strategic Gap or Area of Separation in recognition of the role these areas play in preventing the merger of Coalville with the surrounding built up areas.


9.4 In view of the findings outlined in the background paper our favoured approach is

to delete reference to the Green Wedge. 9.5 In respect of the options put forward, we favour identifying the western part (as

identified on the plan at Appendix 3) between Thringstone/Whitwick and Swannington as, for planning policy purposes, countryside.

9.6 The future of the eastern and central parts (as identified on the plan at Appendix

3) is very much linked to the issue of growth in the Coalville urban area, and where it goes. This is the next issue to be considered. In considering where new development should go we are mindful that the Green Wedge is highly valued by those communities around it. In particular, the Green Wedge has prevented the complete physical merger of Coalville with both Swannington and Whitwick. However, large parts of the Green Wedge are of little public amenity value otherwise as the land is in private ownership with limited opportunities for public access. We will thus need to weigh up these considerations against the need for development and whether greater public benefit could be secured from reshaping these areas.

Question 10 - Do you support our favoured approach on the Green Wedge issue? Question 11 – if under Issue 5 we were to choose not to allow some development within the Green Wedge, have you got any suggestions as to how we could secure increased public access to the Green wedge areas to increase their public amenity value?

10 ISSUE 5 - WHICH AREAS OR SITES SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED FOR

DEVELOPMENT?

Background 10.1 Once we have decided which development scenario to pursue then we can

consider more specifically where development should take place.

18


2005 Issues and Options consultation We sought views on what the nature of any provision should be in respect of housing but did not seek views in respect of possible sites or locations(e.g. should it be a range of sites, a major strategic site in Coalville). Similar views were sought in respect of employment land. Response Opinion was mixed as to whether there should be a single large site or a range of sites. 2007 Additional consultation We identified a number of potential broad locations for development in Coalville and the suggested Rural Towns, for both housing and employment. Response There was overwhelming support for the identification of a Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE) to the south-east of Coalville. There was also some support for development in the existing Green Wedge. Elsewhere there was some support for all the locations suggested (except for employment purposes to the east of Ashby-de-la-Zouch) although there was significant local opposition to any of the sites in Ashby-de-la-Zouch. There was also support for the SUE (s) including a mix of uses. Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment - consultation January 2008 We undertook consultation seeking the identification of sites for potential inclusion within our Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). This is something we are required to do by the Government and is designed to

• identify sites with potential for housing; • assess their housing potential; and • assess when they are likely to be developed

Response We received a large number of suggestions for possible sites. Altogether the identified sites could potentially accommodate over 19,000 dwellings. This is substantially more than that what is likely to be required and therefore, we will need to decide which sites are the most appropriate to help deliver the preferred Development Strategy. More information on the SHLAA can be found in the Housing Background paper.

19


Broad locations or strategic sites? 10.2 Since the 2007 Additional Consultation a revised Planning Policy Statement 12

(Local Spatial Planning) has been published. This now advises that “Core Strategies may allocate sites for strategic development. These should be those sites considered central to achievement of the strategy. Progress on the Core Strategy should not be held up by the inclusion of non-strategic sites.”

10.3 This represents something of a change from the previous advice which did not

favour the identification of specific sites. We are not required to allocate sites. This is a matter for local discretion. An alternative approach would be to identify only ‘broad locations’ for new development. Any such ‘broad location’ would, by its very nature, be quite limited in detail but would clearly identify where development is to occur.

10.4 At this stage we are minded to identify specific sites in the Core Strategy rather

than just indicating broad locations.

Question 12 - Do you agree with our suggested approach of identifying specific sites in the Core Strategy?

10.5 Any sites allocated for development will be done in the context of the

Development Strategy (as outlined previously in section 8). 10.6 We know from the work undertaken so far in respect of the SHLAA where the

potential development sites are. A number of the sites put forward are close together, often with a common boundary with one or more of the other sites. Rather than considering all of these sites separately we propose to consider such sites together to create a larger potential development area. They could include not only housing but also employment uses, as well as any associated community and recreation facilities. Such sites would accord with the concept of a Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE) as referred to in the RSS in respect of Coalville.

10.7 Other sites may be just for housing or employment but would still have a role to

play in achieving the overall strategy and hence could be considered as ‘strategic sites’

10.8 There is no guidance in PPS12 as to what, in size terms, constitutes a ‘strategic

site’. For the purposes of this Core Strategy we propose that a Strategic Site be those sites of 100 dwellings or more or, in the case of employment uses, over 1ha as it is considered that such sites would make a significant contribution towards the overall strategic requirements.

10.9 There is also no accepted definition of what constitutes a SUE. This is because

what is sustainable in one settlement may not be sustainable in another settlement having regard to the scale of the existing settlement and any services and facilities available, as well as the scale of any proposed development and its ability to deliver new facilities. At this stage we do not propose to define what

20

constitutes a SUE although we do make reference to potential SUEs in the Coalville area only in respect of the largest potential development areas.

10.10 Sites below the threshold for a Strategic Sites referred to above will not be

included in the Core Strategy but will be considered in the subsequent Allocations DPD.

Question 13 - Do you agree with our approach to the issue of what should constitute a Strategic Site?

10.11 Whilst we know what the potential sites are from our work on the SHLAA, we

cannot say which sites are likely to be allocated at this stage. This will depend upon a variety of factors including the outcome of our assessment of the four development scenarios set out in paragraph 8.22 and hence the final Development Strategy and the scale of development for individual settlements, as well as any site specific issues.

10.12 However, we are able to identify what the potential advantages and

disadvantages of these sites are. At Appendix 4 we have set out an initial assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of those sites which would constitute a Strategic Site as defined above.

10.13 In addition, we are also able to identify the potential implications of the four

development scenarios referred to in paragraph 8.22 in terms of the individual settlements and how many and which sites may be required under each development scenario. This is set out below.

IT SHOULD BE STRESSED THAT THESE ARE NOT DEFINITIVE ASSESSMENTS AS WE STILL NEED TO COLLECT FURTHER EVIDENCE AND SUBJECT THESE SITES TO SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL. THEY ARE MERELY AN INDICATION AS TO WHICH SITES MAY BE REQUIRED.

What are the possible options for Coalville?

10.14 There are two potential SUE in Coalville (South East of Coalville and North of Stephenson Way) and four other sites which meet our definition of a strategic site (South West Coalville; Adjoining Donignton-le-Heath; North of Thringstone and adjoining Greenhill). These sites are identified on the Plan at Appendix 5.

10.15 We envisage that the south east SUE would also incorporate employment land

on that part adjoining Beveridge Lane and the existing employment area at Bardon. It should be noted that this site includes land north of Grange Road Hugglescote which is allocated for housing development in the adopted Local Plan. In the event that a planning application is submitted prior to us finalising the Core Strategy we will still need to determine the application on its merits.

10.16 The table below indicates those sites (shaded) which may be required to deliver the various development scenarios having regard to the overall number of dwellings in each scenario and the potential number of dwellings which each site could deliver.

21

Site Option 1 - 9800 dwellings

Option 2 – 8000 dwellings


Option 4- 7700 dwellings

South East Coalville (4500 dwellings)

North of Stephenson Way (2650 dwellings)

South West Coalville (700 dwellings)

Adjoining Donington le Heath (550 dwellings)

North of Thringstone (470 dwellings)

Adjoining Greenhill (250 dwellings)

10.17 It can be seen that under our favoured option, Option 1, that all of the sites being

considered would be required in numerical terms. However, even then these sites would not be sufficient to meet the level of growth favoured. Thus we would need to consider what other options there might be for accommodating further growth. This would be likely to involve significant outwards expansion and in numerical terms would involve higher dwelling numbers than required under the various development scenarios. However this option would have the additional benefit of providing flexibility in helping to meet any additional requirements which may arise from the RSS review.

10.18 Our options for expanding outwards are limited.

• North - there are restrictions in going northwards because of the special landscape of the Charnwood Forest,

• East – similar issues in respect of the Charnwood Forest as well the added constraint of Bardon quarry.

• West – No significant landscape issues going westwards along the A511 corridor towards Ashby de la Zouch, but this would take development away from the existing centre and potentially threaten the separate identify of both Coalville and Ashby.

• South – No significant landscape issues but we would need to be mindful of the proximity of Ellistown, Ibstock and Ravenstone. Potential to link into Coalville Town Centre.

10.19 Under Options 2 and 4 we would still need both of the SUE and one or more of

the other sites. 10.20 Under Option 3 we would still need at least one SUE as well as other sites. In

view of its size we favour the South East SUE at this time, but could not rule out also including the North of Stephenson Way SUE as well, particularly as this would also provide the flexibility to meet future requirements as well. Under this option we think it would be better to develop the larger sites rather than having a larger number of smaller sites in view of the potential benefits which could be secured.

22

Question 14 - Which development scenario for Coalville do you support and why? Question 15 - Which of the identified sites in Coalville do you support and why? Question 16– If you support our favoured Development Strategy but do not support one or more the identified sites, can you suggest how we could still make sufficient provision under the favoured option?

What are the Options for Ashby de la Zouch?

10.21 The table below indicates those sites (shaded) which may be required in Ashby

de la Zouch to deliver the various development scenarios having regard to the overall number of dwellings in each scenario and the potential number of dwellings which each site could deliver.

10.22 It should be noted that we have at this time included land east of Leicester Road

which is allocated in the Local Plan for housing development and which is the subject of a current planning application. When we come to make a final decision on which sites to include we will need to have regard to the status of this application in determining how much more new land needs to be identified (i.e. if planning permission is granted then we will need to make less new provision). All these sites are identified on the plan at Appendix 6.

Site Option 1 -

500 dwellings

Option 2 –2400 dwellings



Money Hill (1600 dwellings)

South of Ashby (1100 dwellings)

Holywell Spring Farm (500 dwellings)

East of Leicester Road (400 dwellings)

South of Moira Road (145 dwellings)

10.23 It can be seen that in numerical terms it is likely that under option 1 and 4 we

would not need either of the larger sites at Money Hill or South of Ashby (often referred to as Packington Nook). However, we would need to have regard to not only the number of dwellings required, but also other circumstances and issues, including the responses to this consultation. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be assumed that even under these options that we would not allocate one of these larger sites. However, if we were to do so we may have to consider restricting the amount of development in the plan period on whichever site is allocated or allocate part of the site as a reserve site to be brought forward in the event that housing sites elsewhere do not come forward as envisaged.

10.24 Under Option 2 all of the sites could potentially contribute towards meeting the

dwelling requirement. This could possibly be both of the larger sites (although this

23

would result in a slight over provision) or one larger site and two or more of the remaining sites.

10.25 Under Option 3 again all of the sites could potentially contribute towards meeting

the overall requirement. This is likely to be one of the larger sites and one or more of the remaining sites.

10.26 Whichever option is chosen we will need to demonstrate that the proposed

development would not detrimentally affect the River Mease Special Area of Conservation. We would also need to ensure that any new development does not exacerbate any existing flooding issues downstream of Ashby de la Zouch.

Question 17 - Which development scenario for Ashby de la Zouch do you support and why? Question 18 - Which of the identified sites in Ashby de la Zouch do you support and why? Question 19 - if you support our favoured Development Strategy but do not support one or more the identified sites which contribute towards the Development Strategy as it relates to Ashby de la Zouch, can you suggest how we could still make sufficient provision under the favoured option?

What are the options for Castle Donington?

10.27 The table below indicates those sites (shaded) which may be required in Castle

Donington to deliver the various development scenarios having regard to the overall number of dwellings in each scenario and the potential number of dwellings which each site could deliver.

10.28 It should be noted that we have at this time included land north of Park Lane

which is allocated in the Local Plan for housing development and which is the subject of a current planning application. When we come to make a final decision on which sites to include we will need to have regard to the status of this application in determining how much more new land needs to be identified (i.e. if planning permission is granted then we will need to make less new provision). All these sites are identified on the plan at Appendix 7.

Site Option 1 -

500 dwellings




Land rear of Upton Close (122 dwellings)

North of Park Lane (250 dwellings)

South of Park Lane (700 dwellings)

10.29 There are limited opportunities for development in and around Castle Donington.

As a result the three sites identified could all potentially contribute towards the provision of new housing. However, under option 2 we could only allocate land

24

south of Park Lane if we didn’t allocate one or more of the other sites and even then we would need to consider restricting the amount of development on the site during the plan period or identify it as a reserve site to be brought forward in the event that housing sites elsewhere do not come forward as envisaged.

Question 20 – Which development scenario for Castle Donington do you support and why? Question 21 - Which of the identified sites in Castle Donington do you support and why? Question 22 - if you support our favoured Development Strategy but do not support one or more the identified sites which contribute towards the Development Strategy as it relates to Castle Donington, can you suggest how we could still make sufficient provision under the favoured option?

What are the options for Ibstock?

10.30 The table below indicates those sites (shaded) which may be required in Ibstock

to deliver the various development scenarios having regard to the overall number of dwellings in each scenario and the potential number of dwellings which each site could deliver. All the sites are identified on the plan at Appendix 8.

Site Option 1 -

100 dwellings




Land south of Pretoria Road (160 dwellings)

Leicester Road/Ravenstone Road (220 dwellings)

Off Leicester Road (220 dwellings)

North of Ashby Road (235 dwellings)

South of Ashby Road (290 dwellings)

Station Road (180 dwellings)

10.31 Under all four options all of the sites could potentially contribute towards the

provision of housing. However, it is immediately apparent that under Options 1 and 2 we would only need to allocate a small amount of development from those identified, possibly in the form of one site. On the basis of the assessment at Appendix 8 we consider that the site off Leicester Road to be the most suitable at this time, although even under these options it would result in an over provision.

Question 23 - Which development scenario for Ibstock do you support and why? Question 24 - Which of the sites identified sites in Ibstock do you support and

25

why? Question 25 - if you support our favoured Development Strategy but do not support one or more the identified sites which contribute towards the Development Strategy as it relates to Ibstock, can you suggest how we could still make sufficient provision under the favoured option?

What are the options for Kegworth?

10.32 The table below indicates those sites (shaded) which may be required in

Kegworth to deliver the various development scenarios having regard to the overall number of dwellings in each scenario and the potential number of dwellings which each site could deliver. All the sites are identified on the plan at Appendix 9.

10.33 It should be noted that the District Council has resolved to grant planning

permission for the development of a mixed use scheme on land at Slack & Parr north of Side Ley. This includes provision of about 240 dwellings. We have not included it in the table below and the assessments in view of the fact that the Council has made a decision. In the event that the permission is issued then under Option 1 and 2 we would not require any additional housing.

Site Option 1 – 50 dwellings




Station Road/Long Lane (324 dwellings)

Adjoining Cott factory, Derby Road (404 dwellings)

Adjacent to Computer Centre, Derby Road (542 dwellings)

North of Ashby Road (250 dwellings)

Computer Centre Derby Road (272 dwellings)

10.34 As noted above we would only require any sites under Options 1 and 2 if planning

permission is not forthcoming in respect of the Slack & Parr site. If this were to be the case then all of the sites could potentially contribute towards the housing provision under the four different options Based on what we know at the moment, we consider that at this time the site of the Computer Centre represents the best site in respect of Option 1 and 2 were it to be required, subject to the consideration of the loss of employment land issues. We would also favour the Computer Centre site in respect of Option 4. The remaining sites are all subject to various potential constraints which we would need to be satisfied can be resolved before determining which other site might be required under this option. If

26

however, the permission at the Slack and Parr site is forthcoming then we would not need any sites other than the Computer Centre site.

Question 26 - Which development scenario for Kegworth do you support and why? Question 27 - Which of the identified sites in Kegworth do you support and why? Question 28 - if you support our favoured Development Strategy but do not support one or more the identified sites which contribute towards the Development Strategy as it relates to Kegworth, can you suggest how we could still make sufficient provision under the favoured option?

What are the options for Measham?

10.35 The table below indicates those sites (shaded) which may be required in

Measham to deliver the various development scenarios having regard to the overall number of dwellings in each scenario and the potential number of dwellings which each site could deliver. All the sites are identified on the plan at Appendix 10

Site Option 1 -

50 dwellings



Option 4- 400 dwellings

North east of Atherstone Road (410 dwellings)

South of Burton Road (168 dwellings)

Land between Burton Road and New Street (400 dwellings)

10.36 All three sites could potentially contribute towards the housing provision in

Measham under all four options. However, Land south of Burton Road is physically separated from the rest of Measham and hence is likely to be considered unsuitable.

10.37 Under options 1, 2 and 4 we would not need to allocate all of the sites. Instead

only one site would probably be required. The site between Burton Road and New Street is considered to be the most appropriate, but under Options 1 and 2 there would be a significant over provision. Therefore, we would need to consider restricting the amount of development on the site during the plan period or identify part of it as a reserve site to be brought forward in the event that housing sites elsewhere do not come forward as envisaged. Under option 4 there would not be this issue.

Question 29 - Which development scenario for Measham do you support and why? Question 30 - Which of the identified sites in Measham do you support and why?

27

Question 31 - if you support our favoured Development Strategy but do not support one or more the identified sites which contribute towards the Development Strategy as it relates to Measham, can you suggest how we could still make sufficient provision under the favoured option?


10.38 We have already identified that our favoured development scenario is Option 1

(The Coalville Focus). However, under this option we would also need to consider the expansion of Coalville on a greater scale. We may also need to consider expansion under option 2 as well, particularly as this would provide some flexibility to meet potential additional growth which may arise from the reviewed RSS. It can be seen from the possible options identified in paragraph 10.18 that whichever direction we go in there are some issues. At this stage it would appear that the southerly expansion is the most realistic option.

10.39 One option would be to consider extending both the south east SUE and the area

south west of Coalville to create a much larger area of development. The plan at Appendix 11 identifies the possible extent of such an area. We estimate that a combined south west and south east SUE plus additional land to the south could accommodate somewhere between about 7000 dwellings and 9000 dwellings. Such a scale of development would mean that any development would go beyond the plan period and would have a number of advantages: • It would set the direction of growth for Coalville for the next 30 or 40 years

and hence provide certainty; • It would help provide flexibility to meet any additional requirements which

may be identified as part of the review of the RSS.

10.40 Development on this scale would have significant implications in respect of infrastructure provision. We would therefore need to consider these very carefully. A key issue would be how access could be achieved to this area, possibly involving a development funded road or roads as well as strengthening public transport links into the town centre area and the rest of the Coalville urban area. In addition, there would likely to be a need for new schools, community facilities and health facilities. The need for these and any other facilities would need to be properly addressed as part of new development.

10.41 In terms of the form of any development it is too early to speculate as to what a

development could look like, but it could be designed in a way to reflect the traditional built form of the Coalville Urban Area by the creation of new physically distinct neighbourhoods separated from each other and existing built up areas by open spaces and woodland planting.

Question 32 - Do you support the possibility of expanding Coalvillle? Question 33 - If we do look to expand Coalville would a southerly expansion as outlined above be the most appropriate?

28

11 HOUSING ISSUES

BACKGROUND 11.1 As noted previously we will need to make significant provision for new housing to

meet the requirements of the RSS. The amount of provision that we will make and where this will be accommodated is considered as part of the Development Strategy. There are also other issues in respect of housing other than simply the number of dwellings to be built. For example, issues in respect of the amount of affordable housing to be provided and provision for Gypsies and Travellers’. These two issues are considered in more detail below.

12 ISSUE 6- HOW MUCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING SHOULD BE SOUGHT?


2005 Issues and Options consultation We sought views on whether the council should continue with the approach of negotiating the provision of affordable housing on a site-by-site basis or whether we should set targets for specific sites and the district. Response There was a mixed response with some people supporting this approach whilst others thought that site specific targets should be included. A number of people stressed the importance of ensuring that any requirement for affordable housing did not affect site viability. 2007 Additional consultation We did not consult specifically on the issue of affordable housing.


12.1 We know from a number of sources that there is a significant need for affordable

housing in the district. For example, the Council’s Housing Needs Survey of 2005 identified an annual need of 305 dwellings per annum. The RSS make it clear that in setting a target for affordable housing regard should be had to the Strategic Housing Market Assessments for each Housing Market Area (SHMA). That for the Leicester and Leicestershire HMA is expected to be completed shortly but indicates an annual need in North West Leicestershire for 355 affordable dwellings.

12.2 Planning Policy Statement 3 (Housing) requires that district wide targets for

affordable housing be established as part of Local development Documents. As noted above the emerging SHMA identifies a need for 355 dwellings. However, the overall housing requirement in the RSS equates to 480 dwellings per annum. The need figure identified in the emerging SHMA equates to 74% of the overall requirement. Seeking a level of affordable housing provision as part of new

29

developments that meets the identified need is clearly unrealistic. Therefore we will need to consider what the target should be.

12.3 The RSS identifies a target for the provision of affordable housing in the

Leicester and Leicestershire HMA of 32,000 dwellings for the period 2001-2026. 12.4 The Council has an approved Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) in

respect of Affordable Housing which was adopted in October 2007. 12.5 At this stage we are considering two possible options for seeking affordable

housing.

Option 1 12.6 Secure the provision of new affordable housing as part of new developments with

a target of 30% in the Coalville Urban Area and 40% elsewhere, on developments of 15 or more units. This reflects the approach taken in the Council’s Affordable Housing SPD.

Option 2

12.7 Secure the provision of new affordable housing as part of new developments with

target of 40% on all sites of more than 0.2Ha and/or capable of accommodating 6 or more dwellings in the Coalville Urban Area and the Rural Towns and on sites of 0.1Ha and/or capable of accommodating 3 dwellings elsewhere. This option was rejected when we were preparing the Affordable Housing SPD because it was recognised that the suggested thresholds would be likely to impact upon the economic viability of development sites which would then hinder the overall delivery of new housing.

12.8 For both options we propose to set a target of 2900 dwellings for 2008-2026 or

160 dwellings per annum. This is based on working out the number of houses required to be built across the district (12,200) as a proportion of those to be built across the Leicester and Leicestershire HMA (97,000) and applying this proportion (12.6%) to the RSS target for affordable housing across the Leicester and Leicestershire HMA (32,000) to give an annual figure of 160 affordable dwellings per annum.


12.6 Our favoured approach is option 1 as it is much less likely to affect the viability of

sites than option 2. In addition, whilst option 2 would potentially benefit our rural communities our overall Development Strategy would make allowance for development which meets a local need, including that for affordable housing.

Question 34 - Do you support our favoured approach on the issue of affordable Housing? Are there any other options which should be considered?

30

13 ISSUE 7 – HOW SHOULD WE MEET THE NEEDS OF GYPSIES AND TRAVELLERS’?

Background 13.1 Government Circular 01/2006 requires that local authorities “must allocate

sufficient sites for gypsies and travellers, in terms of the number of pitches required by the RSS..”. It goes on to state that “Where the local planning authority has not allocated sufficient sites for gypsy and traveller need identified by the accommodation assessment process, the Inspector could recommend that the DPD[Development Plan Document] is altered to include additional sites.” It goes on to note that this can only be done where suitable sites have been identified as part of the plan making process. If, however, sites have not been identified then the Inspector could conclude that sites cannot be included at such a late stage and therefore find that the whole plan is “unsound”.


2005 Issues and Options consultation We did not consult on this issue as part of this consultation 2007 Additional consultation We sought views on the type of criteria which we might use to select sites for Gypsies and Travellers and asked whether the Core Strategy should identify areas of search or specific sites. Response There was support for adopting a criteria approach. Some people favoured the approach set out in the RSS and Circular 01/2006 whilst others suggested separating out Travelling Showpeople from Gypsies.


13.1 The Gypsy and Traveller Assessment for Leicester and Leicestershire identified a

need in North West Leicestershire up to 2016 for an additional 43 permanent pitches, up to 20 transit pitches and 10 pitches for showpeople. The RSS now requires that we make provision for this number of pitches.

13.2 It is not clear at this stage as to how many sites may be required but it is likely

that the provision will be on a number of sites rather than say one large site. 13.3 We have identified two possible options for doing this, although in both cases we

have not as yet identified any specific sites.

31

Option 1 13.3 That provision could be made for gypsy and travellers as part of a number of the

strategic housing sites/broad locations to be identified as discussed under Issue 5. The exact number of pitches to be provided on particular sites would have to be determined at a later date when decisions have been made about which Strategic Housing sites or broad locations will be favoured.

Option 2

13.4 That provision could be made on a number of specific sites across the district.

Such sites would still need to be well related to the Coalville, the Rural Towns or Sustainable Villages, in accordance with the Development Strategy

13.5 In both cases appropriate arrangements would need to be put in place to ensure

that the sites are managed properly. This could be either the District or County Council or members of the gypsy and traveller community.


13.6 Our favoured approach is option 1 because it will assist in creating mixed

communities with a greater potential for integrating the Gypsy and Traveller community with the wider community. In addition, it will also provide access for the Gypsy and Traveller community to services and facilities.

Question 35 - Do you support our favoured approach on the issue of making provision for Gypsies and Travellers? Question 36 - If you support Option 2 are you aware of any potential sites which we should look at? Question 37 - Are there any other options which should be considered?

14 ISSUE 8 – WHAT SHOULD OUR HOUSING STRATEGY BE? 14.1 The Core Strategy will need to set out what the Council’s overall approach is in

respect of housing.

What has happened so far? 14.2 We have not previously consulted on this issue. 14.3 Subject to more detailed consideration and confirmation of our favoured

approach on the various housing issues outlined above, our strategy for the housing could be as follows:

32

Favoured Housing Strategy • Make provision for a minimum of 9600 new homes between 2008 and

2026 of which 2900 dwellings are to be affordable ; • Secure the provision of new affordable housing as part of new

developments with a target of 30% in the Coalville Urban Area and 40% elsewhere, on developments of 15 or more units;

• Reduce the number of vacant properties by bringing them back into use as homes;

• Seek a minimum net density on new developments of 30 dwellings per ha;

• Make provision for affordable housing for local people in rural areas by permitting exception sites for 100% affordable housing on suitable sites;

• Make provision for a range of house types and sizes to meet the needs of different groups, including key workers, the disabled, elderly and agricultural workers and

• Provide sites for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Show People as part of strategic housing sites.

Question 38 – do you support our favoured Housing Strategy?

15 ECONOMIC ISSUES

Background 15.1 A key objective of the Core Strategy is to “Continue to diversify the districts

economic base and meet the existing and future business needs of the district, including identifying sufficient land for employment purposes”. In considering how this can be achieved a key issue will be the role, if any, of the district in meeting regional/sub regional economic needs as compared to just meeting our own local needs. Historically North West Leicestershire has also been required to identify sites to meet specific regional/sub regional needs. For example, the East Midlands Distribution Centre on the site of the former Castle Donington Power Station was a specific requirement of a previous Structure Plan designed to meet an identified sub regional need for such a facility.

15.2 We consider what the role of the district might be in meeting regional/sub regional

needs before looking at how we can strengthen the local economy and what our overall economic strategy might be.

16 ISSUE 9 – WHAT APPROACH SHOULD WE TAKE TO MEETING REGIONAL

AND SUB REGIONAL ECONOMIC NEEDS?

Background 16.1 As noted above the district has historically been required to make provision for

new development that is of significance at the regional/sub regional level. This is largely to do with the unique location of the district at the centre of both the region and the sub region, with excellent road links to the strategic road network. In addition, the location of East Midlands Airport within the district provides links

33

for both business people and freight to the rest of the UK and to large parts of Europe and beyond.

16.2 Whilst such developments have provided some employment opportunities for

local people, it can have some negative effects such as resulting in a situation where there are large levels of in commuting from surrounding areas. However, the location of the district is clearly not something which can be changed and so the question is rather what, if any provision should be made for employment uses that are designed to meet a regional/sub regional need?


2005 Issues and Options consultation We did not raise this issue specifically although we did seek views on what form new employment development should take. Response There was generally support for having a range of different sites, including allowing for the expansion of existing businesses and for seeking to secure land for local enterprises. 2007 Additional consultation We sought views on how regional and sub-regional needs should be considered in the Core Strategy. Response In respect of regional and sub-regional needs some people felt that until the amount of need was clear no provision should be made, whilst others felt that the advantages of being well related to Derby, Nottingham and Leicester and the proximity to East Midlands Airport and the motorway network should be recognised.


Option 1 – No provision

16.3 Under this option we would make provision only for local employment needs.

Option 2 – Make provision for regionally significant employment developments

16.4 At the present time the emerging RSS does not include any specific requirements

for regionally significant employment development within any specific district across the region However, the Proposed Changes to the RSS published in July 2008 includes a specific policy in respect of Strategic Distribution. This identifies a number of broad locations where sites should be brought forward for Strategic Distribution uses. One of these locations is the Leicester and Leicestershire

34

housing market area, within which North West Leicestershire is located. The policy does not specify how many sites will be required across the region or within any of the identified broad locations. It does however; include a number of criteria for identifying possible sites including:

• at least 50 hectares of developable land;

• good rail access to routes capable of accommodating large maritime containers (W10 or W12 gauge), the ability to handle full length trains, available capacity and full operational flexibility;

• good access to the highway network and to appropriate points on the trunk road network.

What is our favoured approach? 16.5 At the current time there is no clear guidance as to whether such uses should be

accommodated within North West Leicestershire. However, whilst we are seeking further guidance on this issue we have to recognise that we cannot guarantee that this will be forthcoming. Furthermore, even if guidance were to be issued we have to recognise that the district does have a unique location within the region and sub region, as is recognised within our favoured Vision, and hence it is quite likely that the district would be identified as a suitable location for such development. If we don’t make provision through the Core Strategy it is likely that we would be faced with various planning applications and potentially appeals which could result in a site being ‘forced’ upon us in any event. We would prefer, therefore, to take a more proactive approach to this issue.

16.6 We therefore consider that it would be appropriate for the Core Strategy to

address this issue and make specific provision for a site for Strategic Distribution uses. However, we do recognise that there are concerns about the potential impact a development of this scale would have upon the local environment and communities nearby, as well as the implications for infrastructure. We would need to address these issues.

16.7 We do not propose to make any other provision for other regional/sub regional

employment uses as there is no strategic justification for doing so. For example, the J24 of the M1 area has been promoted in the past as a location for strategic Business Parks. This issue has been debated as part of previous Regional Spatial Strategies and has been rejected.

Question 39 - Do you support our favoured approach?

17 ISSUE 10 – WHICH SITE OR LOCATION SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED FOR

STRATEGIC DISTRIBUTION USES?

What has happened so far? 17.1 We have not previously consulted on this issue.


35

17.2 The Council is aware of three potential sites which have been suggested as

possible Strategic Distribution Centres. 17.3 The first of these is on the site of the former Rapid Loader, off the A511 east of

Ashby de la Zouch (often referred to as ‘Lounge’ (Appendix 12). This site is the subject of a current planning application. A key issue with this site is whether it is large enough to meet the specified criteria although there would appear to be potential to provide a direct rail access.

17.4 The second potential site that has been suggested is on land to the west of

Junction 24 of the M1 and north of the East Midlands Airport (Appendix 13). The site covers about 110 hectares and could include provision of 750,000 sq metres of rail served distribution space. To access this site by rail would require the provision of a new line from the existing railway line which runs from Nottingham to Burton. This would involve crossing a significant area which is identified in the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment as being within Flood Zone 3. This line could potentially be extended further south to serve East Midlands Airport in the longer term, thus potentially addressing surface access issues. However, the size of the site and its proximity to the villages of Lockington, Hemington and Castle Donington (as well as Kegworth on the opposite side of the M1) would require very careful design and layout to preserve the character and amenity of these settlements. In addition, there would be a need for substantial works to the M1.

17.5 The third site is on land north of the A50 at Sawley Crossroads (Appendix 14).

This site covers some 50 hectares (as required by the RSS) and appears to have potential for a rail connection. According to our Strategic Flood Risk Assessment this site falls within Flood Zones 3a and 3b and hence may not be suitable for development unless it can be demonstrated that this is not the case. What is our favoured approach?

17.6 Subject to us being satisfied that the issues outlined above are adequately

addressed we would, at this time, favour the area west of Junction 24 of the M1. This is because it appears at this time to best meet the criteria in the RSS.

Question 40 - Do you support our favoured approach? Question 41 - Are there any other potential sites which the Council should consider as well?

18 ISSUE 11 – HOW SHOULD WE SEEK TO STRENGTHEN THE LOCAL

ECONOMY?

Background 18.1 A key aspect in respect of the local economy will be how we can strengthen it, for

example through diversification of the types of businesses that operate within the District and through seeking to attract higher skilled jobs.


36

2005 Issues and Options consultation We sought views on what form new employment development should take, how we could secure new employment land to meet the needs of local enterprises and what approach we should take to protecting employment land. Response There was generally support for having a range of different sites, including allowing for the expansion of existing businesses and for seeking to secure land for local enterprises. There was support for taking a stronger line in seeking to protect employment land from other uses, but a number of people commented that this should be in the context of reviewing existing sites. 2007 Additional consultation We sought views whether the Core Strategy should seek to secure a minimum provision of smaller units as part of new employment developments. Response There was general support for making provision for smaller units as part of new developments.


Option 1 – Diversification and active involvement

18.2 Under this approach the Council would seek to work with partners to influence

the shape of the local economy of the future by taking advantage of unique local factors. For example, we would seek to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the National Forest to provide a range of opportunities for new and innovative enterprises. For example, various wood related industries and crafts as well as appropriate tourism/leisure opportunities.

18.3 In addition to the National Forest, the district is in the unique position of having

located within it both an international airport (East Midlands Airport) and an international sporting venue (Donington Park Racing circuit). As noted previously, East Midlands Airport is recognised as being of regional significance in terms of the economy. This is not only in terms of the immediate access it provides for businesses but also in terms of the employment opportunities it provides. The airport employs some 6,500 people within its boundaries. In addition, it supports a significant number of jobs in off-airport locations. The type of jobs provided covers a broad spectrum, both skilled and unskilled. In employment terms the airport provides significant opportunities for people from North West Leicestershire. We will need to consider how we can realise this potential further, for example through the creation of high skilled maintenance jobs, whilst having regard to the possible strategy for the airport (see Issue 12).

37

18.4 It has recently been announced that Donington Park is to be the venue for the British Motor Racing Grand Prix from 2010. This will provide enormous potential for local hotels and tourism establishments due to the huge number of visitors that will be attracted. However, it also raises the possibility of creating new highly skilled jobs associated with the design and maintenance of motorsport vehicles, for example by the development of a motor engineering ‘village’ within the racetrack area.

18.5 In support of these opportunities at the airport and racetrack we could seek to

create a unique Donington Park/East Midlands Airport employment zone within which we would seek to create world class facilities based on the design and maintenance of motorsport vehicles and the maintenance of aircraft. This approach would be consistent with the Vision and the Sustainability Triangle as referred to under Issue 1

18.6 We could also need to consider how development at the airport and racetrack

could be linked in to providing greater training opportunities at Stephenson’s College in Coalville, which is already recognised as a centre for motor mechanical training.

18.7 In respect of new businesses we could seek to ensure that new employment

development makes provision for a specified amount of floorspace in the form of small units of say up to 200 sq metres. At the same time we would seek to ensure that a range of sites be provided to meet the different needs.

18.8 In addition, we would seek to protect existing key employment sites from

alternative development and to support the provision of new education and training opportunities, including new infrastructure.

Option 2 – Market led approach

18.9 Under this option we would largely allow the market to determine the type and

nature of new employment provision made, although we would still identify the overall amount of employment land required and allocated sites for development. However, we would not seek to secure any specific provision of smaller units.


18.10 We believe that Option 1 represents the most appropriate way to ensure a strong

local economy. It is a balanced approach which would allow for meeting local needs including specific provision for smaller businesses, as well as wider regional and sub-regional needs and diversification of the local economy.

18.11 As already noted an employment land study commissioned by the LSEP has

recently been completed. We need to consider this further before we can be totally sure about its implications for the amount of land that we need to make provision for and how many sites may be required ,and where.

Question 42 - Do you agree with the idea of creating an employment zone at Donington Park/East Midlands Airport?

38

Question 43 - What do you think would be an appropriate amount of small business space to seek as part of new developments?

18.12 The approach outlined above (together with the issue of making provision for

Strategic Distribution uses) could result in an Economic Strategy which looks something like the following:

Favoured Economic Strategy The Council’s strategy for the economy is to:

• Seek to diversify and upgrade the economy by attracting a range of different employers from higher-value, higher-knowledge activities and by promoting appropriate opportunities for economic development associated with the National Forest, including tourism;

• Make provision for xxx Ha (xxx sq metres floorspace) [to be determined] of new land for employment development falling within Use Classes B1, B2 and B8

• Make provision for a range of sites of different sizes and characteristics; • Make provision for a Strategic Distribution development in the north of

the district; • Safeguard land within East Midlands Airport for operational and directly

associated airport employment uses only; • Promote the creation of a Donington Park/East Midlands Airport

economic activity zone based around the aerospace and motorsport sectors;

• Facilitate the creation of new local businesses by requiring the provision of a minimum of xx% of the new floorspace created in new developments to be in the form of small units of up to 200 sq metres;

• Safeguard existing employment sites where they are recognised as being of sufficient quality and importance to the local economy to merit their retention;

• Facilitate the relocation and growth of businesses wherever possible; • Support the development and enhancement of new education and

training infrastructure; • Work with partners to ensure that existing and new businesses have

access to a range of advice and information that they need to be successful.

Question 44 - Do you consider the possible economic strategy set out above to be appropriate? Should it include any other matters and if so why? Question 45 – If we seek the creation of small units what percentage do you think we should require or is there an alternative approach which you would support instead?

39

19 ISSUE 12 – WHAT SHOULD OUR APPROACH BE IN RESPECT OF EAST MIDLANDS AIRPORT?

Background

19.1 East Midlands Airport is recognised in the RSS as being of regional significance

for the regional economy. However, it is also recognised that the airport has environmental implications of both global (e.g. climate change) and local significance (e.g. noise, air quality, traffic generation). The approach taken by the RSS is to seek to balance these conflicting issues as far as possible.

19.2 The airport has published a Master Plan which illustrates how it sees the airport

developing to 2030. This addresses not just the potential future physical needs of the airport, but also issues related to noise and improving surface access to the airport for employees and passengers alike.

19.3 The Core Strategy will need to set out the Council’s strategy for the airport.


2005 Issues and Options consultation We sought views on what factors should be taken into account in respect of the airport and whether development at the airport should be restricted to that necessary for the operation as an airport. Response It was suggested that account would need to be taken of the anticipated Aviation White paper as well as a range of environmental issues. Some people suggested that links with Castle Donington should be strengthened and that opportunities for regionally significant freight facilities and airport related developments should be considered. 2007 Additional consultation We did not raise any issues as part of this consultation


19.4 As noted above the RSS recognises the importance of East Midlands Airport as

a significant regional asset. Whatever approach we take must reflect this. Option 1

19.5 Have an approach which recognises the importance of East Midlands Airport to

the regional economy and which seeks to maximise the potential for development at and around the airport, including for airport related uses.

40

Option 2 19.6 Have an approach which recognises that East Midlands Airport is an asset of

regional and sub-regional significance and where the Council would:

• Restrict development within the boundaries of the airport to airport operational development only. This will include resisting any further development of the Pegasus Business Park for uses other than airport operational;

• Resist noise sensitive development beyond the airport where it can be demonstrated that the noise levels associated with the airport would be detrimental to the occupiers or users of any such development;

• Seek to ensure that any new operational development should minimise its impact upon the environment (including making appropriate provision for renewable energy) and the local highway network.

In addition, the Council would also:

• work with the Airport and other partners to seek to maximise accessibility to the airport by public transport and other sustainable means of travel in preference to the use of the car. This would include implementing and reviewing periodically the existing airport Surface Access Strategy;

• work with the Airport and other partners, including local communities, to seek to minimise the environmental impact of operations at and connected with the airport , particularly in respect of noise issues associated with night time flights.


19.7 We favour Option 2 as we believe it considers all of the various competing

pressures and issues associated with the airport in a balanced manner such that the airports regional significance would be retained whilst also recognising the importance of protecting the environment, both local and wider, and our local communities.

19.8 This approach would be consistent with the Airport Masterplan in respect of the

Pegasus Business Park. Whilst some development has taken place on the site the rate of development has been slow and in view of the sites poor location in sustainability terms for such a development and with no support for such uses in this locality in the RSS, the Council considers that it would be appropriate to reallocate this land accordingly.

19.9 Option 1 is incompatible with the RSS as it does not recognise the need to

balance the development of the airport against any other issues, such as environmental concerns.

19.10 In the current adopted Local Plan airport operational is defined as being “that

which is required in direct support of the provision of air travel services to and from the airport (whether for passengers or freight), or is necessary for the movement and maintenance of aircraft at the airport. This embraces passenger terminals (which may include facilities reasonably necessary for passengers' comfort or the

41

more convenient or expeditious dispatch of their journeys) aircraft hangars, aircraft servicing and maintenance facilities, and supporting infrastructure and offices”. Development which is not ‘airport operational’ (ie airport related) includes warehousing, hotels, shops and offices other than those identified above. We would suggest that we continue to use these definitions to distinguish between the different types of uses.

Question 46 - Do you support our favoured approach? Question 47 - Are there any other options we should consider? Question 48 - Should we continue to use the definitions of operational and airport related development used in the adopted Local Plan?

TOWN CENTRES AND SHOPPING

20 ISSUE 13 – WHAT SHOULD OUR STRATEGY BE FOR OUR TOWN

CENTRES?

Background 20.1 As noted previously one of the District Council’s key priorities is the revitalisation

of Coalville Town Centre. We have already taken a number of steps to make this a reality including commissioning a Master plan and developing a Vision for the Town Centre, forming a development partnership, establishing a Town Centre Partnership and talking to a range of key stakeholders.

20.2 Outside of Coalville, the Rural Towns also provide significant shopping and

related services for local communities, including surrounding villages. 20.3 The Core Strategy will need to establish an overall strategy for our various town

centres. What has happened so far?

2005 Issues and Options consultation We sought views on how the Core Strategy could support the revitalisation of Coalville and Ashby de la Zouch Town Centres and whether the Core Strategy should make specific provision for new retail development. Response There was support for the production of Area Action Plans for both Coalville and Ashby de la Zouch and suggestions that the location of the two centres within the National Forest should be reflected in any strategies. There was little support for identifying specific sites for development in the Core Strategy but should instead concentrate on establishing a clear strategy, especially in Coalville.

42

2007 Additional consultation We did not raise any issues as part of this consultation


20.4 We have developed three possible options for what our overall strategy might be.

Option 1 20.5 Under this Option the strategy for our town centres and shopping will be to

maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of the following hierarchy of centres: (i) Coalville Town Centre; (ii) The town centres of Ashby de la Zouch, Castle Donington, ,Ibstock, Kegworth

and Measham (iii) Other villages to meet day to day needs

We would identify Coalville as the preferred location for major new shopping and related development. Development elsewhere would be restricted to that which reflects the scale of role of the centres concerned.

Option 2

20.6 Under this option the strategy would:

(i) Focus upon and support the revitalisation of Coalville Town Centre as the principal shopping destination within the district and as befits the role of Coalville as a sub-regional centre;

(ii) Direct and make provision for new shopping and related development in Coalville Town Centre;

(iii) Maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of the town centres of Ashby de la Zouch, Castle Donington, Ibstock, Kegworth and Measham by permitting new retail and associated development which complements the existing provision and the revitalisation of Coalville Town Centre and does not adversely affect the vitality and viability of the rural towns themselves ;

(iv) Incorporate new small scale retail development as part of the strategic housing developments where appropriate to meet the needs generated by such developments;

(v) Protect existing facilities which meet the day-to-day needs of local communities;

(vi) Support the provision of new facilities to meet the day to day needs of local communities where the existing level of provision is inadequate.

We could also set out how the Council would seek to secure the revitalisation of Coalville Town Centre, for example by working: • In partnership with other landowners and developers to bring forward

major new retail and associated development within the Town Centre;

43

• In partnership with landowners, businesses and public sector organisations to seek improvements to the physical environment and accessibility of the town centre;

• In partnership with existing retailers and businesses to deliver the aims and objectives of the Coalvile Town Centre Partnership.

What is out favoured approach?

20.7 Our favoured approach is Option 2. This option reflects the Council’s commitment

to the revitalisation of Coalville Town Centre which is currently the Council’s number one priority. The Council commissioned a Master plan for Coalville Town Centre in 2006 and is now seeking to work with partners to deliver new shopping and related facilities which will enhance the status and role of Coalville as a shopping destination. In order to achieve this it will be important to direct new large scale retail developments which are to meet more than a local need to Coalville Town Centre. This option also recognises the role played by other smaller centres across the district, particularly in meeting day-to-day needs of residents and thus seeks to ensure that inappropriate development is not allowed.

Question 49 - Do you support our favoured approach? Question 50 - Are there any other Options we should consider?

21 ISSUE 14 – SHOULD THE CORE STRATEGY IDENTIFY TOWN CENTRE

BOUNDARIES? 21.1 The existing Local Plan identifies specific boundaries for the various town and

local centres. As part of the Core Strategy it could be argued that it would not be appropriate to identify such boundaries, but rather consider these as part of the proposed Development Management and Allocations document. On the other hand it could be argued that in view of the strategic significance of Town Centres that it would be appropriate to identify specific boundaries. For similar reasons it could also be argued that we should also indicate the likely scale and location of future development in Coalville Town Centre. If we decide to include the Town Centre boundaries we would need to review the existing boundaries and as a result there may be differences from these boundaries. The existing boundaries are identified at Appendix 15.

Question 51 - do you consider that the boundaries of the town centres should be defined as part of the Core Strategy? Question 52 - do you have any suggestions what these should be?

22 ISSUE 15 – WHAT SHOULD OUR OVERALL APPROACH BE IN RESPECT

OF TRANSPORT ISSUES?

Background 22.1 The Core Strategy will need to establish what our overall approach is to ensure

that new development and our communities are accessible, both within the district and beyond, especially by non-car modes. This is particularly important in

44

view of the high car ownership rates in the district together with the high levels of commuting by car. What has happened so far?

2005 Issues and Options consultation We sought views on what whether the Core Strategy should support the re-opening of the National Forest line, whether any provision should be made for new road infrastructure and what approach should be taken to the reopening of the Ashby Canal. Response There was general support for seeking to reopen both the National Forest line and the Ashby Canal. There was some support for improved road infrastructure around J24 of the M1, but other people felt that no new roads should be allowed for. 2007 Additional consultation We did not raise any issues as part of this consultation


22.2 There are limited alternative approaches which we can take to this issue in terms

of the overall strategy which we might pursue. This is because both national and regional policies are clear about the need to reduce the need to travel by private car in order to tackle the causes of climate change. This gives us a very strong steer therefore of the approach which we will need to take. We have not, therefore, developed alternative options at this stage.

22.3 One way to achieve this will be to ensure that new development is located where

provision is available (either now or as part of new development) for access by walking, cycling and public transport and not just by private cars. In addition, the District Council will continue to work with partners such as the County Council and the National Forest to seek to secure the re-opening of the National Forest railway line to passenger traffic through the district. The County Council has recently commissioned a new study to look at this. We would also need to consider how new development in Coalville and Ashby-de-la-Zouch might contribute towards the re-opening.

22.4 In terms of new developments, we could also seek to ensure that the amount of

car parking provided is realistic and appropriate to the circumstances and that development is, where appropriate, accompanied by Travel Plans which demonstrate how non-car modes will be maximised both now and in the future.

22.5 Problems of congestion in the district are largely associated with the trunk roads

(such as the M1, A42 and A453). Proposals for any improvements to overcome

45

these issues will be for the Highways Agency to determine. Whilst it is recognised that building our way out of congestion is likely to be unsuccessful, there may still be occasions where new or improved roads are required, for example to enable a new development to take place (as long as it includes a package of non-car transport measures as well). The Council will only support schemes where there are clear environmental and social benefits for our communities. We do not propose at this stage to introduce radical proposals such as congestion charging but we will continue to work with the relevant highway authorities, such as the County Council to develop long term strategies for transport.

22.6 We would also work in partnership with East Midlands Airport and other partners

to improve accessibility to the airport. It may also be appropriate to consider what steps we can take to work with other major employers, either existing or future, to achieve similar improvements elsewhere.

Question 53 - Do you support our favoured approach? Question 54 - Are there any other options we should consider?

23 ISSUE 16 - DELIVERING WELL DESIGNED, HIGH QUALITY SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPMENTS 23.1 A key aim of Government planning policy is to ensure high quality developments

through good design and the efficient use of resources. Design refers to not only the appearance of any buildings but also the design and layout of an overall development, including public spaces.

23.2 The District Council is committed to achieving good design as part of new

developments.


23.3 Throughout the district there are a large number of attractive settlements with an impressive and diverse legacy of architecture and history and which have a strong local character related to their layout, the use of local materials and buildings styles. Many of these settlements are designated as Conservation Areas. In addition, there are a large number of Listed Buildings.

23.4 Our approach will seek to reflect these important features through appropriate

protection by the application of national policies. 23.5 The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) is the

Government’s advisor on architecture, urban design and public space. CABE has recently launched the ‘Building for Life’ standard, developed with the Home Builders Federation, which is supported by government as the standard for the design quality on new homes. The ‘Building for Life’ provides a means of auditing new developments to ensure that they are meeting appropriate design standards and thus creating quality places.

46

23.6 The District Council is committed to using the ‘Building for Life’ standard as part of new residential developments. We will work with CABE and other partners to promote ‘Building for life’ and the Council is already looking at a design initiative to do this. We will aim to ensure that all major new housing developments achieve a good standard of design as defined by the ‘Building for Life’ standard.

23.7 To ensure that new developments reflect the principles of sustainability our

favoured approach will also refer to the need for new developments to:

• Not result in an increase in the risk of flooding either within the proposed development or elsewhere;

• make efficient use of land, buildings and infrastructure; • incorporate appropriate energy and water efficiency measures; • minimise the use of non-renewable resources; • protect the quality of both underground and surface water; • not result in an unacceptable impact upon the amenities of neighbouring

properties or wider area as a result of noise, vibration, smell, light or other pollution or loss of light or overlooking.

23.8 We have not developed any other options for this issue in view of the strong

steer provided by national policies.

Question 55– do you support our favoured approach? Question 56 - Are there any other issues which should be addressed?

24 ISSUE 17 – SECURING NEW INFRASTRUCTURE

Background 24.1 PPS12 requires that the Core Strategy be supported by evidence of what

physical, social and green infrastructure is needed to enable the amount of development proposed. The scale of development that will take place during the plan period is substantial and will therefore potentially have significant implications for both existing infrastructure, but also the need for additional infrastructure to meet the needs of existing and future communities. What has happened so far?

2005 Issues and Options consultation We sought views on what matters should be included in Planning Obligations (Section 106 Agreements) and what test should be used to determine if a Planning Obligation was appropriate. Response There was general recognition that Planning Obligations should only be sought where they can be justified and to remedy identified problems. A number of

47

people suggested that the Council should await the reforms to the system before deciding on the approach to be taken. A number of people opposed the use of a necessity test. 2007 Additional consultation We did not raise any issues as part of this consultation


24.2 We are aware of a number of issues in respect of infrastructure including

problems with health centres (e.g. Ashby de la Zouch, Coalville), capacity issues at a number of local schools and desires to see improved leisure facilities (e.g. Castle Donington). We are already discussing these issues with a range of service providers and stakeholders. However, until we are clear about the scale of development in particular settlements we cannot determine what the specific requirements might be. We will continue working to try and address these issues.

24.3 At the present time new and improved infrastructure associated with new

development is secured by Section 106 Agreements (or Planning Obligations). The Government has proposed to introduce a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to largely replace S106 Agreements. This is contained in the Planning Bill which is currently going through Parliament. Assuming this is passed the Council will be identified as what is called a ‘charging authority’ which means that we will be able to levy CIL. In essence this means that we will be able to require as part of new developments that the applicants/developer pay certain sums of monies to the Council to be used to provide new infrastructure across the district. The Council will not itself have to provide this infrastructure as this could be done by other organisations (e.g. a Primary Care Trust). Certain matters, such as affordable housing, will still need to be subject to Section 106 Agreements but most other infrastructure could be included within the CIL.

24.4 We will not be required to introduce a CIL as it is discretionary. Should we decide

to do so we will need to follow specific procedures to ensure what is proposed is fair. Whether we decide to introduce a CIL or not we will still be required to be clear about what the infrastructure requirements are likely to be arising from the new development.

24.5 Further details about the CIL can be found here.

Question 57 - We would welcome your views on whether the Council should introduce a CIL or whether we should continue to use Section 106 Agreements? Question 58- are you aware of any infrastructure issues which you think we should know about?

48

25 ISSUE 18 – HOW SHOULD WE APPROACH THE ISSUE OF CLIMATE CHANGE?

Background

25.1 Scientific evidence is quite clear that human activity is a main cause of the changes in climate with the main human influence on global climate being the emission of greenhouse gases. Energy use in buildings accounts for 40% of the UKs total greenhouse gas emissions, with national improvements being brought in through the Building Regulations to reduce carbon emissions from new housing to Zero Carbon by 2016 and other development by 2019.

25.2 National Guidance in the supplement to PPS1 on Climate Change includes advice that Planning Authorities should have an evidence based understanding of the local feasibility and potential for renewable and low-carbon technologies, including micro-generation, to supply new development in their area. Drawing from this evidence planning authorities should set out a target percentage of the energy to be used in new development to come from decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy sources where it is viable. It is also pointed out that in terms of housing the proposed approach will need to be consistent with achieving the pace of housing development required by PPS3 and does not inhibit the provision of affordable housing.

25.3 In line with this advice the Council commissioned consultants together with other Leicestershire Districts to assess the proposed development options, examine renewable energy opportunities and to provide energy efficiency recommendations for new development in a report entitled ‘Planning for Climate Change.’


2005 Issues and Options consultation

We did not consult on this issue as part of this consultation

2007 Additional consultation

We sought views on how issues associated with climate change should be addressed in the Core Strategy and asked whether policies should be included to go further than Bulding Regulations in terms of controlling C02 emissions and whether and what targets should be introduced for reducing carbon emissions across the district.

Response

There were several suggestions as to how the issues should be best addressed including an eco town approach for the Coalville SUE, improve the availability of green technology, maximizing energy efficiency, seek sustainable mixed use development and locate development where it will create sustainable patterns of development reducing the need to travel, avoid development on the floodplain and have a minimum building spec for greener homes.

There was a fairly even split between respondents in favour and against over whether policies should be included to go further than the building regulations and whether targets should be introduced to reduce carbon emissions across the district. A suggestion was to require on site renewable energy on sites of

49

more than 10 dwellings.

What are the options we now want to consult on

25.4 The ‘Planning for Climate Change’ report identified that:

• the Coalville Focus option is marginally the best option due largely to less emissions emitted from transport when compared to the more dispersed options.

• In terms of renewable energy opportunities it indicates that the district has no opportunities for large scale wind turbines (defined as being 90m high) which is largely due to the proximity to East Midlands Airport but scores well in respect of with opportunities for Hydro power with the best site being Kegworth Weir on the River Soar. However the amount of potential electricity generated is small (approx 1 MW).

• The District scores high in respect of integrated building technologies such as solar photovoltaics, micro wind generation, biomass heating, solar water heating and Ground Source Heat Pumps. Combined these technologies (based on the medium scenario*) given the opportunity for 48 MW which is significantly higher than the next best which is Harborough at 36 MW.

25.5 The report recommends for improving energy efficiency in new dwellings beyond requirements of current regulations is 25% for 2008-2010, 44% for 2010-13, 60% for 2013 -16 and Zero Carbon for 2016 onwards.

25.6 Arising from this we wish to consult on the following options:

• Whether we should rely on the building regulations as the appropriate tool to ensure buildings reach zero carbon in line with nationally agreed timescales?

• Whether we should have district wide targets requiring energy efficiency savings for new buildings that go further than the building regulations?

• Whether we should have district wide renewable energy targets in line with the Regional Priorities for Low Carbon Energy Generation in Policy 39 of the Draft RSS and its Appendix 5.

• Whether we should require new developments of more than 10 dwellings or 1,000 square metres floorspace to go further than the RSS target of securing at least 10% of their energy from decentralised and renewable or low carbon sources?

• Whether we should require only the large sites of over 1000 dwellings to be Zero Carbon irrespective of when they are built?

• Whether we should require only the large sites of over 1000 dwellings to reach zero carbon in line with the timescale recommendations contained within the Planning for Climate Change Study


25.7 Based on this evidence our favoured option is to;

50

• require development taking place on Sustainable Urban Extensions (1,000 dwellings or more) to be zero carbon. It should be noted that with the largest sites it is likely that the majority of new housing will be built after 2016 and the revised housing trajectory in the Draft Regional plan requires the district to have 6100 dwellings built between 2016-2026. It should also be noted that the recommended targets do not amount to a radical increase on the targets that are included within the building regulations currently with ambitions for a 25% reduction for 2010-13 and 44% 2013-16 with Zero Carbon for 2016. In addition the smaller sites would be expected to meet existing building regulations which include targets leading to Zero Carbon by 2016. It is considered that this approach represents an appropriate balance between achieving ambitious but realistic targets at the same time as not placing any unviable requirement on developers at the time of a significant housing slowdown which would threaten the overall supply of housing including affordable housing over the plan period.

• Adopt District wide targets in accordance with the requirement in the RSS. In terms of smaller housing sites these are likely to be important in ensuring that sufficient houses are built before 2016 in line with Regional Plan requirements. Particularly in view of the current economic climate, if uniform and inflexible targets are imposed that go beyond the regional target on all housing schemes this could have the effect on placing an obstacle in the delivery of housing over the coming years. There is also a lack of evidence that the smaller sites would remain viable to develop for housing, as although this may change in the future with economies of scale etc it is not clear when.

Question 53- Do you agree with our favoured approach

Question 54 – Do you accept that there are no suitable sites for large scale wind turbines in the district? If not where would you suggest?

Question 55 – Should we go further that the Regional Plan in terms of an increase in the current target of larger schemes of 10 or more dwellings or 1,000 square metres floorspace to secure at least 10% of their energy from decentralised and renewable or low carbon sources? If so what target would you suggest?

Question 56 – Should we have district wide renewable energy targets in line with the Regional Priorities for Low Carbon Energy Generation in Policy 39 of the Draft RSS and its Appendix 5? If so what targets should these be?

26 ISSUE 19 - GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE 26.1 In addition to those issues outlined in detail so far, the Core Strategy will also

consider a number of other issues including that of Green Infrastructure. This is defined in the RSS as comprising of ‘the networks of multi-functional greenspace which sit within, and contribute to, the type of high quality natural and built environment required to deliver ‘sustainable communities’.

26.2 The proposed changes to the RSS include a specific requirement that Green

Infrastructure Plans be developed as part Local Development Frameworks. This

51

is something which we will need to look at further and, as a minimum, the Core Strategy will need to set out what our strategy is going to be in respect of GI. For example, what type of GI will be required as part of new developments and how to protect and enhance existing GI facilities?

26.3 We already know that the district has two strategically important GI facilities in

respect of the National Forest and the Charnwood Forest. The latter is identified in the RSS as a Regional Park and its landscape character and opportunities for recreation have long been recognised as of significant importance within Leicestershire and beyond. We will need to consider how we can balance the various competing issues. We are currently working with the County Council and other local authorities in Leicestershire, together with a number of other partners, to define what this means and how we can take forward this issue.

26.4 In respect of the National Forest this covers about half of the district and has

since its inception in the early 1990’s made a significant contribution towards improving the environmental quality of the area. It is also important from an economic perspective providing opportunities for businesses and tourism. However, it is also a major recreation resource providing opportunities for cycling and walking, for example. We will work with the National Forest Company and other partners to promote appropriate opportunities for further enhancing the role of the National Forest

26.5 We have undertaken an Open Space Audit as required by Planning Policy

Guidance 17. This found disparities in respect of the quantity and quality of provision across the district. It recommends a standard of 15m sq. per child per parish, 15m sq. per person for recreation grounds and 4m sq. per person for open space. It also makes a number of other recommendations about how the quality of recreation spaces can be improved.

26.6 In addition, there will be a wide range of other GI facilities which we will need to

identify and map.

Question 57– apart from the Charnwood forest and the National forest what other aspects of green infrastructure should we consider? Question 58 – do you support the standard of Open Space provision as recommended in our Open Space Audit? If not what standard should we use and why?

27 ISSUE 20 – PRIORITY NEIGHBOURHOODS 27.1 The Partnership for Improving North West Leicestershire has identified a number

of priority neighbourhoods across the District. These are: • Ashby de la Zouch • Castle Donington • Coalville Urban Area (including Coalville Town Centre) • Greenhill • Ibstock • Measham and

52

53

• Moira 27.2 Within each neighbourhood a number of outcomes have been identified which

seek to address those issues which have lead to the areas concerned being identified as priority areas.

27.3 Our approach to seeking improvements in these neighbourhoods will involve

working with other partners, agencies and local communities, to maximise the potential improvements in the quality of life for residents and businesses in the priority areas.

27.4 The Core Strategy will need to consider how the various policies and proposals

can contribute towards meeting these outcomes. For example, the issue of the revitalisation of Coalville Town Centre had already been recognised elsewhere in this document. Other aspects can help address other issues – for example, the approach to transport seeks to ensure that new developments are accessible by walking, cycling and public transport thus addressing some of the issues in respect of health and accessibility to services.

Question 59 – Do you support our favoured approach? Question 60 - In what ways do you consider the Core Strategy can assist with improvements in the Priority Neighbourhoods?

APPENDIX 1- STUDIES THAT INFORM THE EVIDENCE BASE

Completed

• Housing Land Availability Assessment (July 2007) (update of Urban Capacity Study of April 2005)

• Employment Land Study (May 2005)

• Housing Needs Assessment (April 2006)

• Retail Capacity Study (June 2005) (updated October 2007)

• Gypsy and Travellers’ Needs Survey (March 2007)

• Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (May 2008)

• Open Spaces Assessment (May 2008)

• Climate Change Study (June 2008)

• Leicester and Leicestershire Employment Land Study (September 2008)

In Preparation

• Phase 1 and Phase 2 Ecological Survey

• Leicester and Leicestershire Housing Market Assessment

• Older Peoples Housing Needs/Aspirations Assessment

• Transport Assessment and Ptolemy run (Highways Agency model)

• Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

APPENDIX 2 – PLAN OF COALVILLE URBAN AREA

´ 0 1,800 3,600900Meters

Reproduction from Ordnance 1:1250 mapping with permission of the Controller of HMSOCrown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead toprosecution or civil proceedings Licence No: 100019329

North West Leicestershire District CouncilPlanning Policy and Sustainability

Coalville Urban Area

APPENDIX 3 – PLAN OF GREEN WEDGE

APPENDIX 4 – ASSESSMENT OF THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES

ASHBY DE LA ZOUCH SITE ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Money Hill • Close Links to Town Centre and the potential

to reshape part of the town centre. • Large size of the site could deliver not only

new housing but also community benefits such as provision of replacement facilities for Ashby Town Football club, a new Ivanhoe School and new Health Centre.

• Extension of existing development to the south and west of the site would represent consolidation of urban form with the bypass forming a defensible boundary to the north and east.

• Good access to jobs with several sites nearby including Ashby Business Park and McVitties.

• The site is large enough to accommodate a mixed use scheme with the potential for additional employment provision on site.

• Flood risk/ drainage – The site drains into the River Mease SAC with the potential to have an adverse impact. Part of the site is at risk of flooding. RSS identifies a potential negative impact on the River Mease SAC.

• The size of the site would lead to an urban extension potentially out of scale with Ashby.

• Local Services are already operating near capacity and major social infrastructure provision is likely to be required to support any new housing.

• There are issues over whether J13 of the A42 can take additional traffic with development at Money Hill in close proximity to this junction.

• Heritage issues - Ashby has a historic centre which includes a conservation area with several listed buildings. Large scale development may have an adverse impact on this.

• Potential impact upon the landscape north of the town which rises to higher levels.

South of Ashby

• Potential to deliver flood mitigation measures to benefit Ashby and further downstream in Packington.

• The location of the site to the south of Ashby would lead to more traffic using J12 of the A42 which has more capacity than J13.

• There are defensible boundaries to the site with the existing built development to the north, the A42 to the east and Measham Road to the West.


• Development to the south of the town is further away from the town centre and associated shops, community and Leisure facilities and forms a less compact extension to the town.

• There are TPO trees on the site with development

• Proximity of north part of site to possible station as part of National Forest line

potentially impacting on these. • Local Services are already operating near capacity

and major social infrastructure provision is likely to be required to support any new housing.

• Part of the site is at risk of flooding. • Impact upon landscape to the south of town which

is generally flat Holywell Spring Farm

• The smaller size of the site means it will be more likely that housing could be developed earlier than on larger sites with more significant infrastructure requirements.

• The landscape analysis submitted by prospective developer suggests that development in this location will have less impact than the other two large sites put forward in Ashby.

• Flood risk/ drainage – The site drains into the River Mease SAC with the potential to have an adverse impact. RSS identifies a potential negative impact on the River Mease SAC.

• Development to the North West of the town is well away from the town centre and associated shops, community and leisure facilities.

• The site is on Grade II Agricultural land. • May not be able to support the delivery of

significant community benefits.

East of Leicester Road


• Site is bounded on all sides by built development or other urban features. Would represent a logical rounding off.

• Site quite well related to the town centre and existing services and facilities, especially secondary education. Also close to existing employment use.


• Potential highways issues associated with Church Street and Wood Street junction

• May not be able to support the delivery of significant community benefits.

South of Moira Road

• The smaller size of the site means it will be more likely that housing could be developed earlier than on larger sites with more

• Site is well away from the town centre and associated shops, community and leisure facilities although public transport does pass the site.

significant infrastructure requirements. • Primary school close to site.

• Flood risk/ drainage – The site drains into the River Mease SAC with the potential to have an adverse impact. RSS identifies a potential negative impact on the River Mease SAC.

• May not be able to support the delivery of significant community benefits.

• Site is visible in the landscape when viewed from west

CASTLE DONINGTON SITE ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES North Of Park Lane

• Located beyond noise contours associated with Airport.

• The smaller size of the site means it will be more likely that housing could be developed earlier than on larger sites with more significant infrastructure requirements

• If developed together with land south of park lane then this site contribute towards the provision of a bypass.

• Highway Issues in terms of the access point onto Park Lane

• The site is too small to deliver significant community benefits.

• Distance from village centre and services and facilities

South of Park Lane

• The provision of a Western bypass to the town taking traffic away from the town centre and potentially assisting with improving the air quality along Bondgate which is an Air Quality Management Zone.

• Scale of development would partly address the significant imbalance between jobs and houses in the Castle Donington area, with the airport, Willow Farm and East Midlands Storage and Distribution Centre attracting

• Part of the site is within the noise contours of the airport and as such is not suitable for housing. Future airport expansion could result in expanded noise contours covering part of this site.

• Distance from village centre and services and facilities although may be scope to provide some facilities within development.

significant employees from outside of the area who commute

• There is the potential to provide community facilities at the southern part of the site which is not suitable for housing due to proximity to airport.

Rear of Upton Close



• Development to the east of Castle Doninton would contribute to the erosion of an important gap between Castle Donington and Hemington.

• Part of the site is at risk of flooding ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF POTENTIAL SITES – IBSTOCK SITE ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Land south of Pretoria Road

• The smaller size of the site means it will be more likely that housing could be developed earlier than on larger sites elsewhere with more significant infrastructure requirements.

• Potential highway issues at junction of Curzon Street and High Street


• Lack of a logical defensible boundary • Lack of public transport

Leicester Road/ Ravenstone Road

• Potential for providing a link road from Leicester Road to Ravenstone Road


• Development to the north of the town is further away from the village centre and forms a less compact extension to the town.

• There would be coalescence between the village and a ribbon of housing to the east and a partial erosion of the open area between Ibstock and Ellistown, Donington le Health and Ravenstone.

• Lack of a logical defensible boundary Off Leicester • Possible Brownfield site • More work will be needed to assess whether the

Road • Could provide a compact extension to this part of Ibstock with existing housing adjoining the western boundary.


• Located adjoining a public transport route from Coalville to Ibstock

• Close to supermarket at top of Chapel Street

site is more appropriate to be retained for its employment purposes.

• Given its previous use there may be significant remediation costs which would affect the viability of the site for housing


North of Ashby Road

• Development could provide a compact extension to this part of Ibstock


• Development to the south of Ashby Road would partly erode the open gap between Ibstock and Heather.

• Distance from main services and facilities along High Street


South of Ashby Road

• Development could provide a compact extension to this part of Ibstock


• Development would partly erode the open gap between Ibstock and Heather.

• Lack of a logical and defensible boundary • Distance from main services and facilities along

High Street • The site is too small to deliver significant

community benefits. Station Road • The smaller size of the site means it will be

more likely that housing could be developed earlier than on larger sites elsewhere with more significant infrastructure requirements.

• Lack of a logical and defensible boundary • The site is too small to deliver significant

community benefits.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF POTENTIAL SITES – KEGWORTH SITE ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Station Road/Long Lane


• Located within Flood Zone 3 • Lack of a logical and defensible boundary • The site is too small to deliver significant

community benefits. • Possible highway issues in relation to junction of

Station Road and Long Lane Adjoining Cott factory, Derby Road


• Proximity of site to existing warehousing use could impact upon amenity of site.

• Possible highway issues in relation to access onto A6 Derby Road


• Poorly related to other residential areas. Adjacent to Computer Centre, Derby Road


• Clear defensible boundaries provided by existing development and A6 and M1.

• There are noise and air quality issues from the airport and motorway. It is also proposed to widen the motorway in this area which may increase these problems.

• Part of the site is very steeply sloping which would make high density housing problematic.

• Possible highway issues in relation to access onto A6 Derby Road


North of Ashby Road

• The smaller size of the site means it will be more likely that housing could be developed earlier than on larger sites elsewhere with more significant infrastructure

• There are noise and air quality issues from the airport and motorway. It is also proposed to widen the motorway in this area which may increase these problems.

requirements. • Clear defensible boundaries to east, south

and west • Adjoining public transport route.

• Possible access issues • The site is too small to deliver significant

community benefits. • Lack of logical boundary to north

Computer Centre, Derby Road

• Brownfield site • The smaller size of the site means it will be


• Development would represent infilling rather than expansion of kegworth.

• In view of existing use access not likely to be major issue

• Site is currently in employment use. • There are noise and air quality issues from the

airport and motorway. It is also proposed to widen the motorway in this area which may increase these problems.


ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF POTENTIAL SITES – MEASHAM SITE ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES North east of Atherstone road

• Part of site Brownfield • Could provide an opportunity for a mixed

use development • The smaller size of the site means it will be


• Development to the south east of the village is further away from the village centre and forms a less compact extension to the town.

• There is poor connectivity to local amenities and services.

• Current future of employment use on site uncertain. May be more appropriate o be retained for its employment purposes.

• Given its previous industrial use there may be significant remediation costs which would affect the viability of the site for housing.

South of Burton road

• The smaller size of the site means it will be more likely that housing could be

• Poorly related to rest of village and services and facilities.

developed earlier than on larger sites elsewhere with more significant infrastructure requirements.


• Lack of logical and defensible boundary to the west• The site is too small to deliver significant

community benefits. • Access onto Burton Road may be problematical,

especially in respect of visibility.

Land between Burton road and New Street

• Development would represent infilling of this part of Measham.

• Clear and defensible boundaries provided by existing built up area and A42.

• Eastern part of site well related to services and facilities along High Street.

• Development on this site would potentially allow developer contributions to reinstate part of the canal.


• Noise could be an issue on that part of site adjoining the A42.

• The protected route for the canal would be a constraint on development for this part of the site.

• Access into the site may be problematic

APPENDIX 5 – POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES IN COALVILLE URBAN AREA

APPENDIX 6 – POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES IN ASHBY DE LA ZOUCH

APPENDIX 7 – POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES IN CASTLE DONINGTON

APPENDIX 8– POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES IN IBSTOCK

APPENDIX 9 – POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES IN KEGWORTH

APPENDIX 10 – POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES IN MEASHAM

APPENDIX 11 – POTENTIAL SOUTHERLY EXPANSION OF COALVILLE URBAN AREA

´ 0 1,300 2,600650Meters Reproduction from Ordnance 1:1250 mapping with permission of the Controller of HMSO

Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead toprosecution or civil proceedings Licence No: 100019329

North West Leicestershire District CouncilPlanning Policy and Sustainability

Potential Southern Expansionof Coalville Urban Area

Peggs Green

Griffydam

Coleorton

Sinope

Ravenstone

Whitwick

Thringstone

Doningtonle Heath

Hugglescote

Ibstock

Ellistown

COALVILLE

Heather

NOTEExtent of boundaryto be determined

A 511

A 511

A 511

A 447

A 447

Grange Road

AshburtonRoad

AshburtonRoad

APPENDIX 12 – POTENTIAL STRATEGIC DISTRIBUTION SITE - LOUNGE

APPENDIX 13 – POTENTIAL STRATEGIC DISTRIBUTION SITE – WEST OF JUNCTION 24 M1

APPENDIX 14 – POTENTIAL STRATEGIC DISTRIBUTION SITE – SAWLEY CROSSROADS

APPENDIX 15 – EXISTING TOWN AND LOCAL CENTRE BOUNDARIES

APPENDIX 16 – GLOSSARY

Affordable Housing: Includes social rented and intermediate housing, provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the market.

Annual Monitoring Report (AMR):

Part of the Local Development Framework, the Annual Monitoring Report will assess the implementation of the Local Development Scheme and the extent to which policies in Local Development Documents are being successfully implemented.

Area Action Plan: A type of Development Plan Document focused upon a specific location or an area subject to conservation or significant change, for example, major regeneration.

Climate Change: The variation in the Earth's global or regional climate over time.

Community Infrastructure Levy:

A charge which local authorities will be empowered to charge on most types of new development in their area. The proceeds of this charge will be spent on local and sub-regional infrastructure to support the development of the area.

Community Strategy: Local authorities are required under the Local Government Act 2000 to prepare these, with aim of improving the social, environmental and economic well being of their areas. Through the Community Strategy, authorities are expected to co-ordinate the actions of local public, private, voluntary and community sectors. Responsibility for producing Community Strategies may be passed to Local Strategic Partnerships, which include local authority representatives.

Core Strategy: Sets out the long-term spatial vision for the local planning authority’s area, the spatial objectives and strategic policies to deliver that vision. The Core Strategy will have the status of a Development Plan Document.

Development control policies:

These will be a suite of criteria-based policies which are required to ensure that all development within the areas meets the spatial vision and spatial objectives set out in the Core Strategy. They may be included in any Development Plan Document or may form a standalone document.

Development Plan: As set out in Section 38(6) of the Act, an authority’s Development Plan consists of the relevant Regional Spatial Strategy and the Development Plan Documents contained within its Local Development Framework.

Development Plan Document (DPD):

Spatial planning documents that are subject to independent examination, and together with the relevant Regional Spatial Strategy, will form the Development Plan for a local authority area. They can include a Core Strategy, Site Specific Allocations of land, and other Development Plan Documents, such as generic development control policies. They will all be shown geographically on an adopted Proposals Map. Individual Development Plan Documents or parts of a document can be reviewed independently from other Development Plan Documents. Each authority must set out the programme for

preparing its Development Plan Documents in the Local Development Scheme.

Examination: The purpose of the Examination is to consider if the development plan is sound. The majority of representations made at Examination will usually be ‘written representations’. However, in some instances a Planning Inspector may allow representations to be examined by way of oral hearings, for example round table discussions, informal hearing sessions and formal hearing sessions.

Floodplain: Generally low-lying areas adjacent to a watercourse, tidal lengths of a river, where water flows in times of flood or would flow but for the presence of flood defences.

Flood Zones: There is a low probability of flooding in Flood Zone 1 and a medium probability of flooding in Flood Zone 2. There is a high probability that flooding will occur in land designated as part of Flood Zone 3a and Flood Zone 3b is the Functional Floodplain.

Government Office: They represent central government in the region and their role is to promote better and more effective integration of Government policies and programmes at a regional and local level. The Government Office for the East Midlands (GOEM) is the relevant office for North West Leicestershire District Council.

Green Infrastructure: The physical environment within and between our cities, towns and villages. It is a network of multi-functional open spaces, including formal parks, gardens, woodlands, green corridors, waterways, street trees and open countryside.

Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment (GTAA):

An assessment of gypsy and traveller accommodation needs and the data collected will inform the preparation of Development Plan Documents.

Housing Market Area: A geographical area which is relatively self-contained in terms of housing demand i.e. a large percentage of people moving house or settling in the area will have sought a dwelling only in that area.

Infrastructure: The basic requirements for the satisfactory development of an area and include such things as roads, footpaths, sewers, schools, open space and other community facilities.

Local Development Document (LDD):

The collective term covering Development Plan Documents, Supplementary Planning Documents and the Statement of Community Involvement.

Local Development Framework (LDF):

The name for the portfolio of Local Development Documents. It consists of Development Plan Documents, Supplementary Planning Documents, a Statement of Community Involvement, the Local Development Scheme and Annual Monitoring Reports. Together these documents will provide the framework for delivering the spatial planning strategy for a local authority area and may also include Local Development Orders and Simplified Planning Zones.

Local Development Scheme (LDS):

Sets out the Council’s programme for preparing Local Development Documents. All authorities must submit a Scheme to the Secretary of State for approval within six months of commencement of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Local Strategic Partnership: An overall partnership of people that brings together organisations from the public, private, community and voluntary sector within a local authority area, with the objective of improving people’s quality of life.

Low-Carbon energy/technologies:

Comes from sources that produce fewer greenhouse gases than do traditional means of power generation. Includes zero carbon power generation sources as well as sources with lower-level emissions such as natural gas, and technologies that prevent carbon dioxide from being emitted into the atmosphere, such as carbon capture and storage.

Photovoltaic/photovoltaic cells:

Conversion of solar radiation (the sun's rays) to electricity by the effect of photons (tiny packets of light) on the electrons in a solar cell.

Planning Inspector A Planning Inspector is a person appointed on behalf the Planning Inspectorate (itself an executive agency of Government) to conduct the Examination, oversee and to carry out site visits, and consider both written and oral evidence in order to reach a reasoned decision on the soundness of proposed Development Plan Documents.

Planning Obligations and Agreements:

Legal agreements between a planning authority and a developer, or undertakings offered unilaterally by a developer, that ensure that certain extra works related to a development are undertaken. For example, the provision of highways. Sometimes called "Section 106" agreements

Planning Policy Statement (PPS):

Statements setting out the Government’s policy framework at the national level on planning issues such as housing and employment. PPSs will replace existing Planning Policy Guidance (PPG).

Previously developed land: For the purposes of housing policy land which is or was occupied by a permanent (non-agricultural) structure and associated fixed surface infrastructure, including the curtilage of the development, in urban and rural areas. It excludes land and buildings that have been used for agricultural purposes, forest and woodland, and land in built-up areas, which has not been developed previously.

Proposals Map: The adopted Proposals Map illustrates on a base map (reproduced from, or based upon a map base to a registered scale) all the policies contained in Development Plan Documents, together with any saved policies. It must be revised as each new Development Plan Document is adopted, and it should always reflect the up-to-date planning strategy for the area. Proposals for changes to the adopted Proposals Map

accompany submitted Development Plan Documents in the form of a submission Proposals Map.

Regional Planning Guidance (RPG):

Existing regional guidance that sets out regional planning policies that may be used as a material consideration in the preparation of Development Plan Documents.

Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS):

Sets out the region’s policies in relation to the development and use of land and forms part of the Development Plan for local planning authorities. The Core Strategy Development Plan Document must conform with the Regional Spatial Strategy.

Renewable Energy: Renewable energy is energy flows that occur naturally and repeatedly in the environment, for example from the wind, water flow, tides or the sun.

Site specific allocations: Allocations of areas of land for specific purposes (eg housing or employment land) or for mixed uses or development to be contained in Development Plan Documents. Policies will identify any specific requirements for individual proposals.

Spatial Planning: Spatial planning goes beyond traditional land use planning to bring together and integrate policies for the development and use of land with other policies and programmes which influence the nature of places and how they function. This will include policies which can impact on land use by influencing the demands on, or needs for, development, but which are not capable of being delivered solely or mainly through the granting or refusal of planning permission and which may be implemented by other means.

Spatial Vision: How the area will be changed at the end of a plan period.

Special Area of Conservation:

A site designated under the European Community Habitats Directive, to protect internationally important natural habitats and species.

Statement of Community Involvement (SCI):

Sets out the standards which authorities will achieve with regard to involving local communities in the preparation of Local Development Documents and development control decisions. The Statement of Community Involvement is not a Development Plan Document but is subject to independent examination.

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA):

A generic term used to describe environmental assessment as applied to policies, plans and programmes. The European ‘SEA Directive’ (2001/42/EC) requires a formal ‘environmental assessment of certain plans and programmes, including those in the field of planning and land use’.

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA):

A Flood Risk Assessment assesses the risks of all forms of flooding to and from development. A Strategic Flood Risk Assessment should be carried out by a local planning authority to inform the preparation of Local Development Documents.

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA):

A document that’s primary objective is to identify sites with potential for housing, assess their housing potential and when they are likely to be developed.

Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA):

An assessment of the estimated demand for market housing and need for affordable housing in a defined geographical area, in terms of distribution, house types and sizes and the specific requirements of particular groups and which considers future demographic trends.

Supplementary Planning Document (SPD):

Provides supplementary information in respect of the policies in Development Plan Documents. They do not form part of the Development Plan and are not subject to an independent examination.

Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG):

Supplementary Planning Guidance did not form part of the Development plan, but could be a material consideration in deciding planning applications. To carry weight it had to be the subject of proper consultation and a Council resolution. It will be superseded by Supplementary Planning Documents under the new system.

Sustainability Appraisal (SA):

A tool for appraising policies to ensure they reflect sustainable development objectives (i.e. social, environmental and economic factors) and required in the Act to be undertaken for all local development documents. Sustainability Appraisal will be undertaken alongside Strategic Environmental Assessment.

Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report:

This is the first stage of the Sustainability Appraisal /Strategic Environmental Assessment. It sets out the context and objectives, establishes the baseline data, key sustainability issues and sets the framework by which Development Plan Documents will be appraised.

Travel Plans: A travel plan aims to promote sustainable travel choices (for example, cycling) as an alternative to single occupancy car journeys that may impact negatively on the environment, congestion and road safety. Travel plans can be required when granting planning permission for new developments.

Zero Carbon Development: A building or set of buildings with a net energy consumption of zero over a typical year.