Appeal decision/planning refusals ….

Appeal Ref: APP/F2415/W/18/3207233

Corner plot Sutton Road/ Welham Road, Great Bowden, Market Harborough, Leicestershire LE16 7HW

The appellant states that the Neighbourhood Plan identifies that large houses are a notable feature of the village. Be that as it may, green open spaces and the important views created by them is also a notable feature of the area and one that would be eroded by the proposal.

It would also conflict with the parts of Policy H3 and H6 of the Neighbourhood Plan which seeks to ensure new development reflects the character and historic context of existing development within Great Bowden and with Policy ENV7 of the Neighbourhood Plan. This policy states that new development should not have a significant adverse impact on the view from Welham Road/ Sutton Road junction northwards west to east, including Nether Green and a large paddock which links the built environment with historic open spaces.

Appeal Ref: APP/F2415/W/17/3192138

Land South of Dingley Road, Great Bowden, Market Harborough

I have found that the proposed development would preserve the setting of adjacent listed buildings - however, the lack of harm it would cause in this respect does not overcome the clear harm that it would cause to the significance of both the Conservation Area and the Cemetery. For these

Page | 1

reasons, the proposed development would conflict with Policies CS11 and CS17 of Harborough’s Core Strategy (adopted November 2011); and Policies ENV1 and ENV6 of the Neighbourhood Plan. Taken together, and amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that the significance, features and settings of heritage assets are protected, conserved and enhanced; that development respects the context in which it is taking place, responding to the unique characteristics of the site, reflecting the character of the village, and occurs away from undeveloped areas of land which are important to the form and character of a settlement; and does not compromise the effectiveness of the Areas of Separation in protecting the identity and distinctiveness of Great Bowden.

Land at Leicester Lane, Great Bowden 18/01483/OUT 46 dwellings

In pursuance of its powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Harborough District Council refuses to permit the carrying out of the development referred to in Part I hereof for the following reasons:

1. This proposal fails to constitute sustainable development as outlined in paragraph 11 of the NPPF as the adverse impact of the scheme: namely the fact that the site is outside of the development limits for Great Bowden where its approval would conflict with the Great Bowden Neighbourhood Plan, which is an up to date statutory development document as referred to in paragraph 12 of the NPP would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits that the scheme would bring. Therefore, the scheme is contrary to paragraph 12, of the NPPF, policies H1 and H2 of the Great Bowden Neighbourhood Plan and policies CS2 and CS17 of the Harborough Core Strategy

2. The proposal by virtue of the extension of development westward of Great Bowden along the Leicester Lane would give rise to an unbalanced and large-scale estate development on the western periphery of the village contrary to the existing character of the village. In addition, the potential formation of a new access into the site from the Leicester Lane would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of Leicester Lane verge an identified Important Open Space.

Hungarton 8/01110/OUT

Page | 2

Planning permission cannot be given until the Applicant enters into a S106 Agreement to ensure

a) one of the 3 dwellings is to be a 2/3 bed starter home;

b) 1st consideration is to be given to local people and

c) that the development should also include provision of a home for older people,

REASON: In order to comply with Policy H2 of the Hungarton Neighbourhood Plan

Alrewas 17/01495/FULM

The application site lies next to, but outside, the settlement boundary of Alrewas and therefore is within designated Local Green Space within the Alrewas Neighbourhood Plan. By reason of its scale and location, the development would elongate the village in a northern direction and as such would therefore appear as an incongruous urban intrusion into the rural landscape causing harm to its character, which is unrelated to the existing settlement pattern. Therefore the proposal would be contrary to Core Policy 1 (The Spatial Strategy) and Policy Alr4 (Alrewas Housing) of the Lichfield District Local Plan Strategy (2015), Policies HP1 and EC2 of the Alrewas Neighbourhood Plan (Made 2018) and Government Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

2 The application site is not allocated for residential development and the Council is able to demonstrate a housing land supply in excess of 5 years (including the appropriate buffer). The level of growth in this location would be contrary to the spatial strategy which seeks to concentrate a proportionate and modest level of growth to Alrewas in line with the settlement hierarchy. As such the proposal would be contrary to Core Policies 1 (The Spatial Strategy) and 6 (Housing Delivery) and Policy Alr4 (Alrewas Housing) of the Lichfield District Local Plan Strategy (2015),

Page | 3

Policy HP1 Alrewas Neighbourhood Plan (2018) and Government Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Old Dalby 17/00671/OUT

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed dwellings would occupy a site outside of the built-up confines of Old Dalby on land that provides part of the rural setting to the village and forms part of a designated area of separation. The introduction of seven residential units and parking would result in the erosion of the rural character and appearance of the open countryside, eroding the clarity of the eastern approach to the village through a new development which would detract from the open nature of this rural approach. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BE1 and OS2 of the Melton Local Plan, Policies S2, H1, ENV1 and ENV7 of the Broughton and Dalby NP, Policies SS2 and EN4 of the emerging Melton Local Plan and the NPPF. These policies seek to ensure a satisfactory appearance to development and to restrict inappropriate development in the countryside and to protect important open spaces and areas of separation.

Great Easton 18/00442/FUL

Erection of B and B accommodation, including access and associated works, Land Rear Of 28, Caldecott Road, Great Easton.

In pursuance of its powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Harborough District Council refuses to permit the carrying out of the development referred to in Part I hereof for the following reasons:

1. The proposal will be a visual intrusion adversely affecting the character of the area and is contrary to Harborough Core Strategy policy CS11 and Great Easton Neighbourhood Plan policy E2 c) and g) and no material considerations including contribution to business outweigh this harm.

Erection of a dwelling, 22 New Road, Kibworth Beauchamp, Leicestershire. 18/01458/FUL

Page | 4

In pursuance of its powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Harborough District Council refuses to permit the carrying out of the development referred to in Part I hereof for the following reasons:

1. The proposal by virtue of its design, siting and layout will not reflect or enhance the characteristics of the surrounding area and is contrary to Policy CS11 of the Core Strategy, saved Local Plan Policy HS8 and Policies H1 and H4 of the Kibworth Villages Neighbourhood Plan.

2. The design of the property will not safeguard future residential amenity and the access road and parking area will have an adverse impact on existing residential amenity. This is contrary to Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy

Outline application for the erection of up to 22 dwellings with associated access and drainage infrastructure (all matters reserved except for means of access), Land Adj The Nurseries, Fleckney Road, Kibworth Beauchamp. 18/01079/OUT

In pursuance of its powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Harborough District Council refuses to permit the carrying out of the development referred to in Part I hereof for the following reasons:

1. This proposal fails to constitute sustainable development as outlined in paragraph 11 of the NPPF as the adverse impact of the scheme: namely the fact that the site is outside of the development limits for Kibworth where its approval would conflict with the housing strategy of the Kibworth Neighbourhood Plan, which is an up to date statutory development document as referred to in paragraph 12 of the NPPF would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits that the scheme would bring. Therefore, the scheme is contrary to paragraph 12, of the NPPF, policies SD1 and H1(1) of the Kibworth Neighbourhood plan and policies CS2 and CS17 of the Harborough Core Strategy.

Erection of a dwelling, 1 Dag Lane, North Kilworth, Leicestershire. 18/01241/FUL

Page | 5

In pursuance of its powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Harborough District Council refuses to permit the carrying out of the development referred to in Part I hereof for the following reasons:

1. By virtue of its siting and layout, the proposal will result in a harmful loss of the verdant character of this part of the street scene and create a cramped appearance which is contrary to the character of the street scene. The proposal therefore will be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to NK3 of the North Kilworth Neighbourhood Plan and CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy. Furthermore, the loss of the trees and the drainage as proposed do not comply with policies NK14 and NK6 of the North Kilworth Neighbourhood Plan. The proposal is therefore not considered sustainable development in the context of the Framework.

Extension and alteration of existing garage and stable outbuilding to form garage, swimming pool enclosure and room within roof, including raising of roof height and alterations to fenestration, and change of use of barn including a single storey extension and rebuilding to form annexe, Old Station Masters House, Ingarsby Lane, Ingarsby. 18/00795/FUL

In pursuance of its powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Harborough District Council refuses to permit the carrying out of the development referred to in Part I hereof for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development (residential annexe), by virtue of the type and amount of accommodation provided, cannot be considered as ancillary to the existing dwelling and therefore results in the creation of a separate dwelling on the site, which is situated within the open countryside. Planning Permission will only normally be granted for the construction of new dwellings in the countryside where they are essential for the needs of agriculture, forestry or another activity appropriately located in the countryside. The proposed dwelling would be sited in a remote location with poor accessibility to local services, community

Page | 6

facilities and public transport. Future occupiers of the development would lack viable transport alternatives and thereby be overly reliant on the use of a private motor vehicle. The proposal would therefore represent an inappropriate and unsustainable form of development that would be contrary to the relevant provisions of Paragraphs 77-79 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies CS5 (a), CS9 (a), CS11 (c(viii)) and CS17 of the Harborough District Core Strategy. Furthermore, the proposed development would be contrary with the relevant provisions of the Hungarton Neighbourhood Development Plan in respect of housing provision and its appropriate siting.

2. The proposed development would fail to provide adequate on-site vehicular parking provision for the proposed dwelling house, as per the design standards/requirements set out in Leicestershire Highways Design Guide. The proposal, if permitted, would therefore be likely to lead to an undesirable increase in on-street parking to the detriment to highway safety. Accordingly, the proposed development would be contrary with the provisions of Policies CS5 and CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy, Policy T1 of the Hungarton Neighbourhood Development Plan and the Leicestershire Highways Design Guide.

REFUSAL OF PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT Town and Country Planning Act 1990Proposed dropped kerb and driveway formation at 23 Burton Road Ashby De La Zouch Leicestershire LE65 2LF.

The proposal fails to achieve the recommended visibility splays of 2 x 2 metres and would result in an obstructed and obscured view of passing vehicles and pedestrians. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies IF4 and IF7 of the North West Leicestershire Local Plan, Policy S4 of the Ashby Neighbourhood Development Plan, Paragraphs 109 and 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the advice contained within the Leicestershire Highway Design Guide.

Appeal Ref: APP/F2415/W/17/3167654 Land to the north of Oaks Road, Great Glen, Leicestershire LE8 9EG

Page | 7

Decision: The appeal is dismissed.

Policy GG14 (Ridge and Furrow Fields) requires that development should seek to preserve the identified areas of well-preserved ridge and furrow wherever possible. The proposed development would not preserve the ridge and furrow in the southern field apart from a token remnant and there is no reason why it could not. For this reason I determine that it would not comply with GG14. Policy GG17 (Important Trees and Hedges) requires development proposals to protect and integrate into the design of that development existing trees and hedges of good arboricultural, ecological and amenity value. The proposal would result in the loss of 135m of the existing hedgerow to Oaks Lane, which is in reasonably good condition and provides amenity value in enclosing the field, and so would fail to comply with GG17.

These NP Policies are not yet part of the development plan because the NP has not yet been ‘made’ but conflict with them should be given substantial weight, as acknowledged by the appellant and as required by statute.

Page | 8