Case Reference: 3262295

Appeal Decision
Inquiry held on 13-16, 20-21 and 23 April 2021
Site visit made on 22 April 2021
by Tom Gilbert-Wooldridge BA (Hons) MTP MRTPI IHBC
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 21st May 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/K2420/W/20/3262295
Land at Wykin Lane, Stoke Golding, Nuneaton CV13 6JG
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Hinckley &
Bosworth Borough Council.
• The application Ref 19/01324/OUT, dated 15 November 2019, was refused by notice
dated 17 June 2020.
• The development proposed is the construction of up to 55 dwellings, all matters
reserved, except for access.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction
of up to 55 dwellings, all matters reserved, except for access, at land at Wykin
Lane, Stoke Golding, Nuneaton CV13 6JG in accordance with the terms of the
application, Ref 19/01324/OUT, dated 15 November 2019, subject to the 24
conditions set out in the attached schedule.
Procedural Matters
2. The original application was made in outline with all matters reserved except
for access. I have had regard to the illustrative masterplan ref P18-2922_03
Rev C, but consider that all of the details shown are indicative only with the
exception of the access point onto Wykin Lane.
3. The submission version of the Stoke Golding Neighbourhood Plan (SGNP) was
received by the Council shortly before the inquiry opened. The Rule 6 party
Friends of the Community: Stoke Golding (‘the Friends’) provided the inquiry
with a copy of the submission plan. A completed and executed Section 106
agreement (S106) was submitted by the appellant shortly after the close of the
inquiry. I have had regard to both documents in my decision along with all
other documents submitted to this appeal.
Main Issues
4. The main issues are:
i) the effect of the development on traffic movements and highway
safety;
ii) the effect of the development on character and appearance of the
countryside;
iii) the effect of the development on local infrastructure provision;
iv) whether the Council can demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable
housing sites; and
v) the overall planning balance having regard to the adopted and
emerging development plan (including the Stoke Golding
Neighbourhood Plan) and national policy.
Reasons
Traffic movements and highway safety
The existing context
5. The site adjoins Wykin Lane which connects Stoke Golding to the neighbouring
village of Wykin, by which point its name changes to Stoke Lane (hereafter
referred to as the lane). It is a narrow single track lane from the edge of Stoke
Golding southwards with a number of formal and informal passing places such
as driveways. In Wykin, the lane ends at a T-junction with Higham Lane /
Wykin Road. From there, it is a short journey along Wykin Road to the A47 and
the northern edge of Hinckley, including the emerging new housing
development at Hinckley West. An alternative route between Stoke Golding and
Hinckley is via Stoke Road, a road of a more standard width for two-way traffic.
6. The lane contains sections of relatively straight and flat road, but also has
some bends and undulations, with a 90 degree bend on the north side of
Wykin. This creates limited forward visibility in a number of places. There is no
street lighting outside the built-up areas of the two villages and no pavement
south of the new Stoke Golding cemetery. Between the edges of the two
villages, the national speed limit applies. In reality, speeds tend to be lower
due the nature of the lane. Warning signs at either end of the lane note it is
unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) although some HGVs including
tractors use the lane to access farms and businesses. A secondary school mini-
bus to and from Hinckley also uses the lane.
7. Traffic count data reveals around 6,000 vehicles pass the edge of Stoke
Golding in one week, with around 80-85 vehicles recorded in the AM and PM
peak hours on average. From my site visit observations across the afternoon
and early evening of 22 April 2021, the lane had a regular flow of traffic, albeit
with some lengthy gaps between vehicles and it was not as busy as Stoke Road
around the end of the school day. It is apparent that satellite navigation
systems direct traffic along the lane including delivery vehicles and tourists.
The Friends and interested parties refer to an increase in background traffic as
a consequence of developments elsewhere, with rat running to avoid busier
routes like the A5.
8. The lane is popular with and well-used by non-motorised users including
walkers, cyclists and horse riders. It is also used by people in wheelchairs and
those with buggies. Survey data and my site visit observations indicate that
most walkers use the first stretch of the lane nearest to Stoke Golding before
turning onto one of the public footpaths south of the cemetery. Nevertheless, it
is possible to walk to the edge of Hinckley and various services and facilities in
approximately 20-30 minutes.
9. Cyclists appear to use the full length of the lane for recreation purposes as part
of a network of recommended and leisure routes across the borough.
Commuting to Hinckley by bike is also possible. The Friends and interested
parties note that the lane is used as part of circular route for horse riders with
several stables located nearby. While the Covid-19 pandemic may have
increased the number of people using the lane during lockdowns, there is little
evidence to support the notion that levels may decline significantly in the
future. It is evident that non-motorised users use the tarmac surface of the
lane wherever possible. Grass verges and passing places offer some refuge
from motor traffic, although verges are generally lacking nearer to Wykin and
the lane is less attractive for use in poorer weather conditions.
10. There have been no recorded accidents along the lane. Nevertheless, that does
not automatically mean that the lane is safe. Evidence from interested parties
suggests a number of minor incidents and near misses including a vehicle
ending up in a ditch next to the lane. The lane’s narrow width presents risks
when motorised traffic meets another road user, particularly on stretches
where visibility is poor and passing places and verges are lacking. The width
falls below what would be required in terms of design guidance from
Leicestershire County Council (LCC) as the local highway authority, although
this applies to a new residential access road rather than an existing lane.
11. People park their cars on the lane near the cemetery entrance for funeral
services and to visit graves, and also to go on countryside walks, which can
result in localised congestion. The lack of street lighting adds to the risks
especially when it gets dark earlier in the evening in the autumn/winter,
notwithstanding vehicle lights and the ability of non-motorised users to wear
high visibility clothing. There is no evidence that the lane is gritted during icy
weather and there are various potholes and carriageway/verge damage. The T-
junction in Wykin is not wide enough for traffic turning onto the lane if there is
a vehicle waiting to exit.
12. The lane evidently has a number of existing safety issues. Whilst these are not
of a magnitude that people are avoiding using it altogether, it is clear that
there are significant concerns from a large number of interested parties.
Experiences and perceptions of risk will vary between individuals. People will
choose whether to use the lane by different modes of transport. Stoke Road
provides an alternative and wider route of similar distance and duration for
motor vehicles between Stoke Golding and Hinckley, although suffers from
congestion around the secondary school at the start and end of the school day.
It has not been demonstrated that any increase in the use of the lane would be
unacceptable, but it is necessary to consider whether the development and the
proposed mitigation would have an acceptable effect.
The effect of the proposed development
13. The development would generate 33 trips during either the AM or PM peak
hour. The Council and appellant take differing views on whether Census
journey to work or traffic count data should be used, but agree that 33 trips
would result in 17 to 23 additional vehicles using the lane during these hours.
This is a 20-28% increase on existing levels. Figures from the Friends’ traffic
consultant show a similar increase. Based on trip generation estimates and
traffic count data, such percentage increases would be maintained across the
day between 7am and 7pm.
14. While the increase in PM peak hour traffic would fall within the existing daily
variation, it is not apparent that this would be the case at other times of the
day. Thus, there would be a noticeable effect of more traffic on the lane. The
level of increase would present additional risks as there would be more
occasions for all users of the lane to encounter motor vehicles. Based on the
existing lane context, the potential for conflict and incidents would increase by
over a quarter for pedestrians, including during evening hours. The increase in
encounters would be lower for cyclists due to their average speed, but there
would be limited space for motor vehicles to pass cyclists safely. Horse riders
would experience similar levels of additional vehicles as pedestrians with
similar difficulties to cyclists in terms of drivers being able to overtake properly.
In addition to the safety implications, this could discourage non-motorised use
of the lane to the detriment of sustainable travel.
15. The appellant proposes 11 new passing places and 7 improved passing places
as mitigation to allow more opportunities for road users to give way to
oncoming traffic. Passing places are used in many rural locations and no
guidance or research has been presented to demonstrate that they are
inappropriate in terms of highway safety. However, the parties dispute their
effectiveness in this case. I set out my assessment in the following paragraphs.
16. The visibility between the new and existing passing places would be reasonable
in most places taking into account likely speeds and the nature of the existing
lane. Proposed signage to denote each location would assist with visibility and
would also reduce the risk of vehicles using the passing passes for car parking
purposes. The visibility would allow vehicles to see and react to oncoming
traffic in sufficient time. One exception is between new passing places 3 and 2
heading towards Wykin. However, visibility in the opposite direction is better
and there is an informal passing place at a field entrance next to the Ambion
Way public footpath. The other exception is between passing places either side
of the 90 degree bend. However, traffic speeds approaching such a bend are
very reduced while there is scope for southbound traffic to move to the left at
the bend to avoid oncoming vehicles.
17. The new passing places would result in localised widening of the lane, but most
of the existing width and bends would remain. This would require drivers to
travel at an appropriate and safe speed below the national speed limit. While it
is possible some drivers might try and race between signposted passing places,
it is more plausible that most drivers would behave in a more rational manner,
giving way to oncoming traffic where it is safe and reasonable to do so. Thus,
the mitigation would not give rise to significant increases in traffic speeds.
Moreover, it would not make the journey along the lane much quicker or easier
to the extent that it would attract significant additional background traffic.
18. While the new passing places would reduce the extent of grass verges, they
would offer non-motorised users some refuge at a level grade with dropped
kerbs. Existing verge and road damage would be improved with more passing
places reducing the likelihood of vehicles having to come off the tarmac
surface. The passing places mitigation has been subject to a Road Safety Audit
(RSA) and found to be safe. The brief for the RSA was not explicit in the need
to consider non-motorised road users. However, the auditors clarified shortly
before the inquiry opened that they did have regard to such users during their
assessment in line with national guidance, referring to the lane as a popular
and well-used route. Moreover, the RSA process requires further monitoring of
the passing places once installed and remedial work could take place. Thus, I
am satisfied that while the focus of the passing places is towards motorised
vehicles, they would not be unsafe, they would cater for the needs of non-
motorised users, and would be an appropriate form of mitigation.
19. In terms of effects on the T-junction with Higham Lane / Wykin Road, existing
survey data by the appellant reveals up to 3 vehicles queuing on the lane
during morning peak hours and up to 2 vehicles queueing on Wykin Road in the
morning and evening peak hours. Such queues occur in periods of less than 5
minutes indicating that they clear relatively quickly. The increased number of
vehicles in the morning and evening peaks is not of a magnitude that would
add significantly to queue lengths or delays. The additional traffic is also
unlikely to greatly increase the risk to non-motorised users at this junction.
Whilst narrow, the visibility along the lane from the T-junction is reasonable,
with a passing place just beyond the narrow section. Moreover, there is a
public footpath that bypasses the junction altogether for pedestrians walking to
and from Hinckley.
20. As for cumulative effects, Hinckley West on the north-west edge of the town
will comprise 850 homes when complete. It is a site allocation in the Hinckley
and Bosworth Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD
2016 (SADMP) which has since gained planning permission. SADMP Policy SA2
required the provision of an appropriate strategy that reduces the impact of
traffic from the development on Wykin Lane through Wykin village. The traffic
statement for the approved development was based on modelling data specific
to the location. It reveals little difference in traffic flows along Wykin Road from
the A47 as a result of the development. It follows therefore that there would be
little increase in motor vehicles using Wykin Lane to access Stoke Golding. It is
possible that new residents would seek to walk or cycle for recreational
purposes along the lane. However, the local footpath and cycle network is
extensive and it is not certain that a large number of people would chose to
use the lane.
21. The recently approved Roseway scheme on the northern side of Stoke Golding
could result in some future residents using the lane to reach Hinckley.
However, given the location of the Roseway site and the network of village
roads, it is likely that a significant number of vehicles would go via Hinckley
Road and Stoke Road. Therefore, the proposed development would not have a
significant or severe cumulative effect with the approved Hinckley West and/or
Roseway schemes.
22. In terms of the site access from the lane, the visibility splays shown on the
detailed plan are in accordance with national and LCC guidance and would not
result in extensive vegetation loss. The site access would have an impact on
car parking for the cemetery, but this is an informal arrangement and funeral
services are likely to only be occasional. As a consequence, I am satisfied that
safe and suitable access can be provided for the development.
23. I have had regard to comments made by and about LCC as the local highway
authority. I have insufficient evidence to substantiate claims that LCC are
reluctant to sustain objections to applications on highway safety grounds. It is
apparent that a LCC highways officer visited the site and the lane to assess the
original application and that further information was sought before no objection
was confirmed. This included impacts on non-motorised road users even
though detailed data on such users was not available until after the application
was determined. In any case, I have reached my findings on this main issue
based on the evidence before me.
24. The development would increase the amount of motor vehicles using the lane
with an increased risk of conflict between such vehicles and other road users.
However, through the mitigation of additional and improved passing places,
negative effects would be reduced and would not be significant. The impact on
the T-junction would be acceptable and there would be no significant or severe
cumulative effects with the Hinckley West or Roseway schemes. The site access
would also be appropriate.
25. In conclusion, the development with the proposed mitigation would have an
acceptable effect on traffic movements and highway safety. Therefore, it would
not conflict with SADMP Policy DM17 which seeks, amongst other things, to
ensure convenient and safe access for walking and cycling to services and
facilities and to avoid significant adverse impacts on highway safety. It would
also follow the advice in SADMP paragraph 14.68 in terms of safe access to the
highway and in ensuring that the local highway network will continue to
function effectively. It would not conflict with Policies 7, 11 and 14 of the
Hinckley and Bosworth Core Strategy 2009 (CS) insofar as they seek to deliver
a walking/cycling route between Stoke Golding and Hinckley.
26. The development would also not conflict with paragraph 109 of the National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which aims to only prevent or refuse
development on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on
highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would
be severe. It would also not prejudice the aims of NPPF paragraph 104(d) and
110 in terms of encouraging sustainable modes of transport and minimising the
scope for conflict between different road users. The development would also
maintain existing cycle routes, having regard to Local Transport Note 1/20 on
cycle infrastructure design.
Character and appearance
The existing context
27. The site is located just outside the Stoke Golding settlement boundary and is
considered to lie within the countryside as set out by SADMP Policy DM4. This
policy seeks to protect the intrinsic value, beauty, open character, and
landscape character of the countryside from unsustainable development.
Development will be considered sustainable where it meets one of 5 exceptions
in criteria (a) to (e) and complies with provisions in criteria (i) to (v), including
the avoidance of significant adverse effects on the countryside. None of the 5
exceptions are applicable to this development.
28. In the Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Landscape Character Assessment, the
site lies within Landscape Character Area E: Stoke Golding Rolling Farmland.
This includes the area between the village and the northern edge of Hinckley.
Its characteristics include small to medium scale rectilinear field patterns, rural
settlements with historic cores, modern outskirts and sporadic farmsteads on
the edges within a strong rural setting, and connecting rural lanes with grass
verges and well-maintained hedgerows. The site adjoins Urban Character Area
11: Stoke Golding, where reference is made to development on the edge of the
village gradually decreasing in density with individual farmsteads creating a
sensitive transition to the countryside. Key sensitivities include the village’s
rural setting and visual links to the surrounding countryside.
29. The site is an irregular shaped grass field. To the north are existing residential
properties on Arnold Road, Stoneley Road and Wykin Lane as well as the village
recreation ground. A solar farm is located to the north-east, the new cemetery
and amenity space to the west, and the paddock and buildings of Willow Farm
to the south. Beyond these features are a network of agricultural fields and
public footpaths. There are mature trees and hedgerows along the lane and
recreation ground boundaries. The boundaries with the properties to the north
and the field to the east are much more open.
30. Along the lane boundary (both from the road and the cemetery entrance) and
immediately to the north and south, it is possible to see glimpses of the site
through gaps between trees. This is particularly the case during winter months,
with the existing properties to the north also visible in the background. The site
quickly becomes hidden by vegetation further south on the lane and also from
two public footpaths running west from the lane to the south of the cemetery.
From public viewpoints further south and east, the site is hard to discern
against the existing settlement edge and is often screened by vegetation and
the general landform. This includes the view from Compass Field Farm on the
lane as identified by SGNP Policy SG10.
31. From the recreation ground, it is possible to see glimpses of the site between
gaps in trees, with the roofline of Willow Farm visible even in summer months.
From Hinckley Road to the north-east, the site is harder to pick out across an
intervening field and the solar farm. From the southern end of Arnold Road, the
site appears in a gap between two properties albeit screened by planting. Due
to the lack of tall boundary screening, there are clear views across the site
from private locations within the ground and first floor rear elevations and rear
gardens of up to 15 properties on Arnold Road, Stoneley Road and Wykin Lane.
32. The existing site as a small to medium sized field adjacent to a rural lane forms
part of the transition from village to countryside. The proximity and visibility of
residential properties to the north exerts an urbanising influence particularly
within the site. Conversely, the recreation ground, solar farm and cemetery can
only be glimpsed from within the site and so there remains a wider rural
setting. Along the lane boundary, the site is experienced against the backdrop
of the cemetery and existing housing on the village edge although it clearly
marks the start of the countryside. The site is well-contained and screened by
boundary planting along the lane and from public footpaths both nearby and
further afield, as well as from the recreation ground. There are no public
footpaths across the site or any other form of public recreation provision.
33. The site makes a limited contribution in terms of the wider landscape character
area due to its size, location and screening. However, in terms of the site itself
and its immediate context, the landscape value, susceptibility and sensitivity is
of a medium level due to the above considerations. While I concur with the
Council and appellant that the site and surrounding area do not comprise a
valued landscape for the purposes of NPPF paragraph 170(a), it is evident that
they are valued by local residents including as part of recreational routes from
the village to the countryside. In visual terms, the site can only be seen in
glimpses along or near to the boundary apart from in private viewpoints. Thus,
I consider the existing site makes a moderate positive contribution to the
character and appearance of the countryside.
34. The lane beyond the village edge has a rural character and appearance as a
tarmac road flanked by grass verges, fields, trees, hedgerows, and occasional
properties and farms. Existing passing places comprise tarmac and/or loose
gravel but have a low visual impact. Damage to verges and potholes as a result
of traffic is unfortunate and in places is somewhat unsightly.
The effect of the proposed development
35. The illustrative masterplan gives an indication of the potential internal layout,
routes and landscaping that could be provided with the development at the
reserved matters stage. The design and access statement refers to 2 storey
properties with focal buildings in key locations. The access point onto the lane
is fixed as part of the outline application and would result in around 13-15m of
boundary vegetation being removed diagonally opposite the cemetery
entrance.
36. Regardless of the details at reserved matters stage, the change from an
undeveloped grass field to a residential development of up to 55 homes would
represent a fundamental change to the character and appearance of the site
itself. The urban edge of Stoke Golding would extend southwards unlike the
1980s cul-de-sacs of Arnold and Stoneley Roads which were built to the east of
1930s housing on Wykin Lane rather than to the south. The housing would be
located between the cemetery and the recreation ground. However, it would
not coalesce with either of these adjoining land uses due to the extent of
vegetation screening. Similarly, the buffer provided by the paddock at Willow
Farm would prevent coalescence with the existing farm buildings. Willow Farm
would be less isolated but would remain an individual farmstead on the edge of
the village.
37. With the exception of the site access, it is intended that the boundary
vegetation along the lane would be retained and enhanced. Planting would also
be strengthened along other boundaries. No detailed landscape mitigation
scheme exists at present due to the outline nature of the proposal. However, I
am satisfied that sufficient mitigation could be secured as part of the reserved
matters stage. The development would be well-contained and seen against the
context of the village settlement edge. While the magnitude of impact at site
level would be high due to the change from field to residential, the impact on
wider landscape character would be low. Therefore, the significance of
landscape effect would be no greater than moderate adverse.
38. In terms of visual effects, it is likely that the tops of properties would be seen
in close-up views along the lane boundary including from the village edge, the
cemetery entrance, and near to Willow Farm, especially in winter months.
There would also be similar views from the start of the footpaths to the south
of the cemetery. However, such views would be glimpses based on the
retention and enhancement of planting. The site access would be a relatively
short section of the boundary and properties could be set back behind
landscaping to reduce the negative effect. The visibility of properties from the
recreation ground would also be likely to be limited based on boundary
planting. From all of these viewpoints by Year 15, I consider the adverse visual
impact would be no greater than moderate. From public viewpoints further
away to the south and east, including by Compass Field Farm, the development
would be much less visible and so the adverse impacts would be negligible to
minor at worst.
39. The development would be highly visible from the rear elevations and gardens
of adjoining properties to the north. This would result in major adverse effects
in terms of private views. However, the planning system is largely concerned
with land use in the public interest rather than the protection of purely private
interests such as private views. It is likely that significant negative effects on
the living conditions of existing occupiers in terms of matters such as outlook,
light and privacy can be avoided through the detailed designs at the reserved
matters stage. Therefore, I only give moderate weight to these adverse effects.
40. The introduction of additional and improved passing places along the lane
would increase the lane’s width at various points, with tarmac and dropped
kerb edgings replacing section of loose gravel and grass verges. However,
much of the lane would remain single width and the additional tarmac would
have a limited visual impact. Passing place signs would be more visible given
their intended purpose, but their height, size and number would not be
excessive or greatly detract from the lane’s rural character. Existing areas of
loose gravel and potholes could be removed where they coincide with a passing
place. No formal landscape and visual impact assessment has been carried out
for the passing places works. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the works would
have no more than a minor negative effect and that the lane would retain a
rural character and appearance.
41. In conclusion, the development would have a negative effect on the character
and appearance of the countryside and so would conflict with SADMP Policy
DM4. However, the negative effect would be no greater than a moderate
adverse impact for the reasons set out above. Given that issues relating to the
living conditions of nearby residents and the detailed design can be addressed
at the reserved matters stage, the development would not conflict with SADMP
Policy DM10, criteria (b) and (c) in particular.
Local infrastructure
42. Stoke Golding is designated as a Key Rural Centre in the CS based on the
services and facilities set out in CS paragraph 4.31. The post office closed in
2017, but all of the other services and facilities remain. The local shop is a
small newsagent/corner shop but it still meets basic day to day retail needs
and is open throughout much of the week.
43. The primary school is oversubscribed with more children on the roll (226) than
the net capacity (208). Prospective pupils within the catchment area are not
guaranteed a place at the school. LCC’s Children and Family Services forecast
that the development would generate 17 new pupils and an overall deficit of 29
places if also accounting for demographic changes. While the school has limited
room to expand outwards without affecting its playing field or playground, LCC
has confirmed that there is non-teaching space that could be adapted to
provide additional teaching accommodation. The S106 would provide a financial
contribution towards the improvement, remodelling or enhancement of facilities
at the school or any other school within the locality. It is unfortunate that some
children may still need to travel to school outside the village. Nevertheless, I
consider the development would have an acceptable effect in terms of primary
school provision.
44. The secondary school is a faith school with an admissions policy based largely
on religious rather than geographic criteria. As such, fewer children from Stoke
Golding attend the school than might be expected. The nearest other
secondary schools are in Hinckley where there is an overall surplus of places
forecast. A school bus runs from the village to Redmoor Academy with pupils
charged £500 per annum for the service. The cost may be prohibitive for some
families, but it provides a reasonable alternative to daily car journeys. Thus,
the effect of the development on secondary school provision is also acceptable.
45. It is apparent that both of the village schools generate congestion and parking
issues at the start and end of the school day. Given that the development
would be within walking and cycling distance of both schools, it is unlikely to
add significantly to this existing situation.
46. The village surgery is a branch of Hinckley Castle Mead Practice and dispenses
medicines to over 1700 patients. There is no full-time resident doctor and a
limited number of surgeries per week. Patient numbers have increased
significantly in recent years and the ratio of patients to doctor exceeds
national/local averages and recommendations. The surgery building is small
with very limited scope to expand outwards. However, the West Leicestershire
Clinical Commissioning Group (WLCCG) has indicated that the clinical rooms
could be refurbished to enable them to become multi-functional treatment
rooms. This would allow an increase in the number and type of appointments
and services to accommodate the development. The S106 would provide a
financial contribution towards the provision and/or improvement of surgery
facilities in line with WLCCG’s request. Therefore, the development would have
an acceptable effect on surgery provision.
47. In terms of community and leisure facilities, the village hall is popular in terms
of bookings while the surrounding recreation ground contains children’s play
equipment and sports pitches. Both require maintenance and improvements
with the recreation ground below the quality levels expected by the Council.
The development would make a financial contribution via the S106 towards the
provision and maintenance of various open space facilities. There is little
evidence to show that the development would worsen the provision of
community and leisure facilities and so its effect would be acceptable.
48. The bus service between Hinckley and Nuneaton runs approximately once an
hour between early morning and early evening Monday to Friday and at a
similar frequency mid-morning to early evening on Saturdays. CS paragraph
4.31 does not envisage a greater level of bus service for Key Rural Centres.
The service allows people to access shops, employment and educational
facilities in the two towns with journey times of around 20-30 minutes. Thus, it
would provide future occupants of the development with a realistic alternative
to the private car and help reduce traffic and congestion on local roads.
49. Employment opportunities within Stoke Golding are restricted and there are no
leases currently available at the industrial estate. The village ranks towards the
bottom of Leicestershire settlements in terms of its economic profile. However,
this is in comparison to larger villages and towns across the county and the
village’s profile is not dissimilar to some of the other Key Rural Centres within
the borough. While the lack of local employment would result in occupants of
the development needing to travel beyond the village for work, Hinckley is a
short journey away and there is the option to travel by non-car modes. Thus,
the development would have an acceptable effect having regard to employment
provision.
50. Wykin Lane can be described as a recreational resource in its own right, given
its popularity with cyclists, walkers and horse riders. For the reasons set out
above under the first main issue, the development would not have an
unacceptable impact on this resource. The tranquil qualities of the cemetery
would be affected during the construction phase, but the hours and nature of
works can be controlled by conditions. This phase would also be time-limited.
51. Concluding on this main issue, the development would have an acceptable
effect on local infrastructure provision having regard to the level of existing
services and facilities and the contributions set out in the S106.
Housing land supply
Overview and approach
52. The Council’s position on whether it can demonstrate a 5 year supply of
deliverable housing sites has fluctuated throughout the course of this appeal.
Towards the end of the inquiry, the Council conceded that, for the purposes of
this appeal, it could not demonstrate a 5 year supply. However, the appellant
and Council continue to disagree on the extent of the shortfall in terms of the
deliverability of 5 specific sites. With the annual housing requirement rounded
up to 473 dwellings per annum (dpa), the shortfall would be 467 dwellings
based on the appellant’s position or 85 dwellings based on the Council’s
position. This equates to around 4.01 or 4.82 years’ worth of supply
respectively with a base date of 1 April 2020.
53. There were two other sites discussed at the inquiry where the Council has
revised the 5 year delivery rate. For Westfield Farm on Keats Lane, the Council
has reduced the delivery of housing to from 60dpa to 40dpa based on evidence
from the developer. This results in 122 fewer dwellings. For Springfield Riding
School on Groby Road, the Council now considers an additional 27 dwellings
will be delivered in the 5 year period based on an updated trajectory from the
developer. The appellant did not dispute either site and I have no reason to
disagree with the revised figures. These revisions have been factored in the
parties’ respective positions on the shortfall outlined above.
Disputed sites
54. Land north of Triumph Motorcycles (Hinckley West). Phase 1 of this large site
has detailed planning permission for 260 homes. The Council’s build-out rate of
60dpa is based on evidence from the developer. The site is under construction,
key parts of the road infrastructure are largely in place, and the first
completions are expected in July 2021. While the Council normally applies a
build-out rate of 47dpa for sites over 100 dwellings, this is an estimate for the
purposes of assessing potential available housing sites. More specific detailed
information can be utilised instead where available. There is no clear evidence
that 60dpa would not be achieved between 2021/22 and 2024/25 and so I
agree with the Council that 240 homes can be included in the 5 year supply.
55. Sedgemere, Station Road, Market Bosworth. This site has an extant full
planning permission for 57 dwellings and site works have commenced. An
application for 73 dwellings is currently being considered by the Council with a
decision expected in June 2021. Pre-application discussions have sought to
resolve 6 reasons for refusal relating to a previous application in 2020. While
there is some uncertainty as to whether the current application will be
approved, the site continues to benefit from detailed planning permission and
the developer is looking to start building homes as soon as possible. Therefore,
there is a realistic prospect and clear evidence that at least 57 dwellings would
be delivered within the 5 year period.
56. Trinity Marina, Coventry Road. This site benefits from outline planning
permission that includes up to 74 dwellings. A letter from the developer
indicates a reserved matters application and approval in summer/autumn 2021
with construction starting in 2022 and completion in 2024. The only reserved
matter left relates to appearance with little indication that approval would not
be forthcoming. The sale of the site is required before matters can progress
and this has been hampered by the pandemic. This has led to the Council
pushing the delivery of housing back to 2023/24 and 2024/2025. However, a
firm offer has been received and negotiations continue with little evidence that
a sale would not be agreed this year. Therefore, there is a realistic prospect
and clear evidence that 74 dwellings would be delivered within the 5 year
period.
57. Land south of Station Road and Heath Road, Market Bosworth. This site is
allocated in both the SADMP and the Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Plan. A
masterplan is due to be adopted in June 2021 and the Council contends that
access issues are capable of being resolved. However, I have little information
on progress towards the submission of a planning application. While this is
partly due to commercial sensitivities, this does not justify the lack of clear
evidence regarding the deliverability of 100 dwellings within the 5 year period.
Therefore, this figure and the site as a whole should be deleted from the
Council’s 5 year housing supply.
58. Garden Farm, Bagworth Road, Barlestone. This site is allocated in the SADMP
and previously had outline planning permission for 64 dwellings. The Council
now considers that 99 dwellings can be delivered based on a new planning
application due to be determined shortly. There is some uncertainty as to
whether the application will be approved, but the previous permission and
existing allocation indicates a realistic prospect of deliverability. Moreover, as a
100% affordable housing scheme with grant funding, there are set contractual
timescales to be met. Therefore, clear evidence exists for the delivery of 99
dwellings within the 5 year period.
Conclusion on housing land supply
59. It is already accepted that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of
deliverable housing sites. Removing 100 dwellings from the Council’s 5 year
housing supply would result in a shortfall of 185 dwellings and a 5 year supply
figure of around 4.6 years. The implications of the shortfall will be considered
as part of the planning balance below.
Other matters
60. Various potential housing sites around Stoke Golding have come forward in
recent years as part of the Council’s Strategic Housing and Employment Land
Availability Assessment (SHELAA). However, this document forms part of the
evidence base for the emerging new Local Plan and does not mean that each
site would or should be developed. Further assessment of the planning merits
of each site would need to take place before any could be allocated or
developed. I am aware that a planning application for 70 homes on a site south
of Hinckley Road has recently been submitted to the Council. However, this
application has yet to be determined and so does not affect my overall
decision.
61. In the SHELAA, the appeal site forms part of a wider site that extends further
south along Wykin Lane. The Friends and interested parties refer to the
possibility of the number of houses doubling or trebling across a greater area,
pointing to the illustrative masterplan where the primary street ends at the
boundary with the next field. While there has been initial assessment work and
inquiries relating to a larger development, I can only deal with the proposal and
evidence before me. Any alternative scheme would require a separate planning
application that would need to properly address a wide range of issues.
Therefore, granting planning permission for this appeal would not set a
precedent for further development on a wider Wykin Lane site or any other site
around the village.
62. Stoke Golding has a number of heritage assets including listed buildings, two
conservation areas, a scheduled monument, and part of the registered
battlefield associated with the Battle of Bosworth, all of which attract visitors to
the area. However, the site is sufficiently distant from these heritage assets
and so the development would not have an adverse effect on their setting or
significance. Wykin Lane appears to be a historic drovers’ route dating back
several centuries. However, it is already used by motor vehicles while the
extent of proposed mitigation works to the lane are limited. Thus, the
development is unlikely to negatively affect any features of archaeological or
historic interest.
63. The existing site contains habitat features that can support protected species
such as great crested newts (GCN), bats, birds and badgers. Survey work
indicates the presence of GCN in the surrounding area. The proposed mitigation
seeks 4.5m uncut buffers to hedgerows to allow connectivity for GCN around
the site. This can be secured via condition, along with updated badger and GCN
surveys and an overall biodiversity management plan to address all relevant
protected species. As a consequence, the development should avoid negative
effects on biodiversity matters.
64. There is an area of low surface water flood risk towards the north-east corner
of the site. The reduction in permeable surfaces as a result of the development
could increase the risk of such flooding within the site and surrounding area.
Interested parties refer to flooding incidents such as in front of the cemetery.
The proposed surface water drainage would include an attenuation pond that
discharges to the adjacent watercourse. There are capacity issues with the foul
sewer network and so an on-site pumping station would be necessary along
with modelling work to be agreed with Severn Trent. On this basis, the
development would have an acceptable effect on flooding and drainage.
65. Concerns relating to construction effects, including noise and dust pollution and
the routing of traffic, can be controlled via condition. While it would appear that
there has been an increase in crime across the village in recent years, there is
insufficient evidence to link this to additional new housing. There would be a
loss of agricultural land, but the site is not of a particularly high grade and
much agricultural land around Stoke Golding would remain. Thus, it would only
represent a minor negative effect. The site is within a few kilometres of Stoke
Golding Airfield but I have no evidence that shows the development would
affect its operation. I am satisfied that the development would not compromise
the use of the adjoining recreation ground given the vegetation buffer. The
effect on property values is not a planning matter.
Planning obligations
66. The S106 agreement covers a number of planning obligations that are required
by development plan policies including SADMP Policy DM3 which seeks the
provision and delivery of infrastructure. The S106 would secure 40% affordable
housing provision and a tenure split in accordance with CS Policy 15. It would
ensure Travel Packs and bus passes are made available to the first occupants
of each new dwelling to encourage sustainable modes of transport. It would
provide a financial contribution towards maintaining household waste
management facilities and capacity. It would also provide a financial
contribution towards library facilities in Hinckley to address the increase in the
catchment population.
67. As noted above, the S106 would make a financial contribution towards off-site
open space with the focus on providing and maintaining specific facilities at the
adjoining recreation ground. It would also ensure the provision and
maintenance of open space within the development. Both elements would be in
accordance with CS Policies 11 and 19 which seek open space improvements in
Stoke Golding and across the borough.
68. The S106 would make financial contributions towards education and health
facilities as discussed above. The figures are based on calculations set out by
LCC and WLCCG informed by the likely number of people generated by the
development. The health facilities contribution would be made prior to the
commencement of development while the education contribution would be
staggered but nevertheless paid in full before 40% of the dwellings are first
occupied. Similar to some of the other contributions, they would need to be
spent within 5 years of them being received by the relevant authority.
69. Given the policy requirements and the infrastructure needs arising from the
development, I am satisfied that all of the above obligations are necessary to
make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the
development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the
development. They would accord with Regulation 122 of the Community
Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended). Therefore, I can take all of
the S106 obligations into account as part of my decision.
The planning balance
Emerging development plan
70. Preparation of the Stoke Golding Neighbourhood Plan (SGNP) commenced in
2015 and has been subject to various stages of public consultation. The SGNP
submission version has been sent to the Council for legal checks prior to
further public consultation. An examination and referendum would follow the
consultation before the SGNP could be formally made.
71. The SGNP submission version has been amended following the Council’s
decision to approve 65 dwellings on land east of Roseway. A reserve site for
around 25 dwellings on land at Stokesfield Farm has been removed while the
only housing allocation at Mulberry Farm is now a reserve site for around 25
dwellings. The latter site is a brownfield site within the village conservation
area containing derelict farm buildings. It is identified as an improvement area
in the conservation area appraisal and its redevelopment is generally supported
locally over the use of greenfield sites. The Roseway and Mulberry Farm sites
would provide 30 years of housing supply for Stoke Golding based on the rate
set out for the village in the CS.
72. Concerns have been expressed that allowing this appeal would undermine the
SGNP by overproviding housing on greenfield sites and would result in the
removal of the Mulberry Farm site. However, the housing requirement figure in
the SGNP is expressed as a minimum of 57 dwellings. It is based on minimum
numbers derived from the CS which are dated and under review as part of the
emerging new Local Plan. Therefore, there is no reason in principle why the
Mulberry Farm site could not remain in the SGNP and come forward as a
housing scheme. The SGNP makes allowance for windfall housing proposals and
contains a range of policies to guide various types of development.
73. The SGNP still has some way to go in terms of its preparation and there are
unresolved objections to the plan. Therefore, I concur with the parties that
limited weight can be afforded to the SGNP and any conflict with it.
Nevertheless, and having had regard to NPPF paragraphs 48-50, I am content
that allowing this appeal would not undermine the SGNP to the extent that it
could not progress to become an important part of the development plan for
Stoke Golding.
74. The emerging new Local Plan was subject to a public consultation in early 2019
on directions for growth. This focused on potential revisions to the spatial
strategy set out in the CS including to the north-west of Hinckley. However, the
next public consultation is not expected before summer 2021 and the
examination and adoption of the plan is not likely for some time yet. Therefore,
the plan can only be attributed very limited weight at this stage.
The application of NPPF paragraph 11(d)
75. The NPPF sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Paragraph 11(d) states that where there are no relevant policies, or the policies
which are most important for determining the application are out of date,
planning permission should be granted unless one of two exceptions apply. The
first is not applicable to this appeal as there are no areas or assets of particular
importance affected (such as designated heritage assets). The second
exception states that any adverse impacts of granting permission would
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against
the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole (also known as the tilted balance).
76. The lack of a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites alone triggers the tilted
balance in paragraph 11(d). The Council and appellant accept that the balance
is also triggered due to most important policies being out of date. However, the
parties differ in terms of which policies qualify as most important, the reasons
for some of these policies being out of date, and the weight to be given to the
policies and any conflict with them.
77. The parties agree that CS Policies 7 and 11 and SADMP Policies DM4 and DM17
are most important policies for the purposes of this appeal. CS Policy 15 deals
with affordable housing provision and SADMP Policy DM1 reflects the
presumption in favour of sustainable development in the 2012 version of the
NPPF. Both are very relevant to this appeal and so I concur with the Council
that they can be regarded as most important policies too. CS Policy 17 relates
to small scale developments only and so is not applicable to this appeal.
78. CS Policies 7 and 11 set out the spatial strategy and policies for Key Rural
Centres. Amongst other things, CS Policy 7 supports housing development
within settlement boundaries. CS Policy 11 sets a housing requirement of a
minimum of 60 new homes for Stoke Golding, with developers required to
show that the number, type and mix of housing proposed meets the needs of
Stoke Golding taking into account the latest evidence.
79. The CS housing requirement figures are derived from the now revoked East
Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy which set a target of 450dpa. The Council
accepts that the two policies are out of date due to more up to date
assessment of housing requirement via the government’s Standard
Methodology (SM). While the latest SM data reveals a local housing need of
450dpa, the Council acknowledges that this figure is a starting point for
assessing the housing requirement rather than the end point as exists in the
CS. Thus, it is recognised that CS Policies 7 and 11 are out of date. However,
the appellant and Council disagree that the policies are also out of date due to
the application of the CS spatial strategy and settlement boundaries.
80. The CS requires just over 5,000 new dwellings to be delivered between 2009
and 2026. The spatial strategy focuses on two sustainable urban extensions
(SUE) of 2,000 dwellings at Earl Shilton and 2,500 dwellings at Barwell with
4,120 to be built by 2026. To date, no dwelling has been delivered in either
location with none forecast to be delivered before 2026.
81. Despite the lack of progress with the SUEs, it is evident that the Council has
continued to deliver new housing within settlement boundaries and on site
allocations. There has been no significant under-delivery of housing in terms of
the housing delivery test. However, it is also apparent that planning permission
has been granted for sites outside of settlement boundaries even where
minimum CS housing figures for settlements have been exceeded. This
includes the Roseway site in Stoke Golding and two sites in Desford. The
reasons for these permissions vary but has included situations where the tilted
balance applied such as at Roseway.
82. There remains a need for development to be sustainable, while settlement
boundaries continue to be an important tool to guide development even if they
are somewhat dated or under review. Nevertheless, these permissions are an
indication that the spatial strategy and settlement boundaries in the borough
have been applied in a flexible rather than a rigid way due to specific
circumstances. Therefore, this provides an additional reason to state that CS
Policies 7 and 11 are out of date. As such, I consider only moderate weight can
be afforded to CS Policies 7 and 11 and any conflict with them insofar as they
seek housing development within settlement boundaries and set housing
targets for Stoke Golding.
83. Affordable housing targets in CS Policy CS15 are based on figures that have
since been updated. Thus, it can be regarded as out of date in a similar way to
CS Policies 7 and 11. However, as it seeks to secure the provision of affordable
housing it can still be afforded significant weight. SADMP Policies DM1 and
DM17 are broadly consistent with the NPPF on their respective topics. There
are no other reasons to indicate they are out of date or that they carry reduced
weight.
84. To the extent that SADMP Policy DM4 seeks to implement the CS through its
approach to the countryside and settlement boundaries, it is also out of date.
In terms of weight, the emphasis of the policy is to promote sustainable
development in the countryside and protect it from unsustainable proposals. In
that regard, there is broad compliance with the NPPF including paragraph
170(b) and so the policy can be afforded significant weight. Market housing
schemes such as this appeal are automatically in conflict with the policy as they
do not fall within the exceptions in (a) to (e). Nevertheless, it is for the decision
maker to consider how much weight to give to the conflict based on the effect
of the development on the countryside. In this instance, I have found that the
negative effects would be no greater than moderate. Therefore, I attribute no
more than moderate weight to the conflict with Policy DM4.
85. Taken as a whole, the policies most important for this decision can be regarded
as being out of date for a number of reasons. This finding, along with my
assessment of the weight to be attributed to each policy and any conflict with
it, can be taken forward into the application of the tilted balance.
86. The parties agree that the economic benefits arising from the construction of
the development and subsequent investment in the local economy carry
moderate weight in favour of the scheme even if they are generic benefits.
Environmental benefits comprise additional planting and biodiversity
improvements within the site including enhancements to GCN habitats. These
benefits carry moderate weight.
87. Social benefits comprise the provision of market and affordable housing. In
terms of the former, there is no 5 year housing land supply and I have found
the deficit is more than marginal at over 180 homes. While there has been no
significant under-delivery of housing, the most recent housing delivery test
measurement of 92% requires the Council to produce an action plan to
increase delivery. The fact that the annual housing requirement figure in the
latest SM data matches the CS does not temper the weight given to market
housing, particularly when the SM figure is a starting point and the CS figure
an out of date end point.
88. Stoke Golding has exceeded the minimum housing requirement by more than 3
times the amount set out in CS Policy 11 while the Roseway development alone
would exceed the minimum figure set out in the submission SGNP. However,
these figures are minimums and are based on CS figures which are
acknowledged to be out of date. Taking the above into account, I consider
significant weight can be afforded to the provision of market housing to
address the shortfall.
89. As for affordable housing, CS Policy 15 requires 2,090 homes to be delivered
over the 20 year plan period. While annualised targets are not used by the CS,
this averages out at around 105 per year. So far, an average of 92 affordable
homes per year have been delivered although the Council provides evidence
not challenged by the appellant that it is on course to exceed the CS target by
over 50 homes by 2026. Nevertheless, recent research carried out to inform
the emerging Local Plan reveals a need of 271 homes per year while there are
a significant number of people on the Council’s housing register. The need is
greater in urban locations like Hinckley, but it can be met in any part of the
borough. The development would deliver 40% affordable housing in accordance
with CS Policy 15. This would equate to 22 homes if 55 are built in total. In
light of the above, this represents a significant benefit.
90. The provision of additional passing places is primarily aimed at mitigating the
effects of the development even though they will be of some assistance to
existing users of the lane. Thus, I attribute very little weight to them as a
benefit of the development.
91. In terms of adverse impacts, the development would have a negative effect on
the character and appearance of the countryside and so would conflict with
SADMP Policy DM4. However, for the reasons expressed above, I afford only
moderate weight to the negative effects and the policy conflict. The
development would be located beyond the settlement boundary and would be
contrary to CS Policies 7 and 11 but I only give moderate weight to that
conflict. It would not accord with the submission SGNP but neither would it
undermine it and so this conflict carries limited weight. There would be no
conflict with the emerging Local Plan. There would be a minor negative effect in
terms of the loss of agricultural land. The development would have an
acceptable effect on traffic movements and highway safety in line with SADMP
Policy DM17 and an acceptable effect on local infrastructure provision.
92. The adverse impacts of the development carry no more than moderate weight
and so would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when
assessed against the NPPF policies taken as a whole. As such, the presumption
in favour of sustainable development would apply in line with NPPF paragraph
11 and SADMP Policy DM1.
93. There has been significant public interest in this appeal and many opponents of
the development. The Friends and interested parties have eloquently set out
their concerns and evidence, providing invaluable local insight. However, I have
carefully considered the planning evidence and arguments for and against the
development. On this occasion, they weigh in favour of granting planning
permission.
94. Concluding on the planning balance, while the development would conflict with
CS Policies 7 and 11 and SADMP Policy DM4, there are sufficient material
considerations to indicate that permission should be granted.
Conditions
95. Condition 1 applies shorter timescales for the submission of reserved matters
applications and the commencement of development as part of the Council’s
action plan to speed up the delivery of housing in light of the current supply
position. Condition 2 sets out the details of what is required to be submitted at
the reserved matters stage, all of which is necessary including information on
the housing mix. Condition 3 is necessary to ensure that details of internal
access and circulation routes are provided, as the approved plans only relate to
the access point onto Wykin Lane and the masterplan is only illustrative.
Conditions 2 and 3 are pre-commencement as it is important to approve all of
these details as part of the overall scheme. Conditions 4 and 5 are necessary to
clarify the approved plans and ensure the provision of the access point.
96. Conditions 6 and 7 are necessary to ensure that the construction phase has an
acceptable effect on local residents. Condition 6 is pre-commencement to
ensure the details are agreed before works begin on site. Conditions 8 and 9
are necessary to ensure that any land contamination matters are properly
addressed. Condition 8 is pre-commencement as it is necessary to understand
contamination risks at an early stage.
97. Conditions 10, 11 and 12 are necessary to address matters relating to flood
risk and drainage at construction and occupation stages. Conditions 10 and 11
are pre-commencement as drainage details need to be established early on.
Condition 13 is necessary to ensure that the development has a satisfactory
appearance and is pre-commencement to ensure existing ground levels are
confirmed before groundworks begin.
98. Conditions 14 to 18 are necessary in the interests of biodiversity and landscape
character. Condition 14 is pre-commencement to ensure that the protection
and enhancement of species and habitats is factored into the development
from the outset. An updated badger survey in Condition 15 is necessary to
ensure that no new setts have been established since the original survey work.
99. Conditions 19 and 20 are necessary to make the development acceptable in
terms of traffic movements and highway safety along Wykin/Stoke Lane.
Condition 19 requires further details on improvements to existing passing
places while Condition 20 requires the implementation of the new passing
places that will be subject to a separate Section 278 process with LCC. I am
satisfied that both conditions would secure the necessary work and the work
would be completed within an appropriate timeframe.
100. Condition 21 is needed to ensure the adequate provision of bin storage while
Condition 22 is necessary to ensure occupants are informed about sustainable
waste management. Condition 23 is required to ensure that external lighting is
appropriate to the local area while Condition 24 is necessary to ensure the
provision of communications infrastructure.
Conclusion
101. For the above reasons, and having had regard to all other matters raised,
the appeal is allowed.
Tom Gilbert-Wooldridge
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT
Thea Osmund-Smith of Counsel, instructed by Christopher May of Pegasus Group
She called:
David Cummins BEng (Hons) MSc CEng MCIHT MCILT
Director, ADC Infrastructure
Katie Machin BSc PG Dip LA CMLI
Associate Landscape Architect, Pegasus Group
Christopher May BA (Hons) MRTPI
Director, Pegasus Group
Ben Cook
Principal Planner, Pegasus Group
FOR THE COUNCIL
Leanne Buckley-Thomson of Council, instructed by Mr Rice of Hinckley and
Bosworth Borough Council (HBBC)
She called:
Atholl Noon MRPTI MCILT
Director, Markides Associates Ltd
Ian Spindler BA (Hons) PG Dip LA CMLI
Principal Landscape Architect, Crestwood Environmental Ltd
Andrew Gray MSc TP MSc UP&R MRTPI MIED
Associate Planning Director, Aitchison Raffety
Helen Nightingale MRTPI
Principal Planning Officer, HBBC
Jenny Brader MSc
Senior Planning Officer, HBBC
FOR THE FRIENDS OF THE COMMUNITY: STOKE GOLDING (the Friends)
Steve Martin of the Friends
He called:
Ross Lockett
Local resident and member of the Friends
Diane Sinclair
Local resident and member of the Friends
Mervyn Ward
Chairman of Stoke Golding’s Neighbourhood Plan Advisory Committee
INTERESTED PERSONS WHO SPOKE AT THE INQUIRY
Cllr Jonathan Collett Borough Councillor
Cllr David Cope Borough Councillor
Cllr Andy Furlong FRCS MCIPR Borough Councillor
Cllr David Bill MBE County and Borough Councillor
Cllr Ivan Ould OBE County Councillor
Cllr Linda Mayne Parish Councillor
Cllr Rachel Terheege Parish Councillor
Katie Elliott Local resident
Tracey Chadwick Local resident
William Sinclair Local resident
Karen Jones Local resident
Jacquelyn Jones Local resident
Robert Crowfoot Local resident
Andrew Parton Local resident
Alan White Local resident
Andrew Clover Local resident
Nick Robinson Local resident
Anne Wigley Local resident
Annabel Del Gesso Local resident
Julie Butterworth Local resident
Karen Hardy Local resident
INQUIRY DOCUMENTS
ID1 Appellant’s opening statement
ID2 Council’s opening statement
ID3 The Friends’ opening statement
ID4 Written representation by Jamie McQuade (local resident)
ID5 Appellant’s response to the brief for the passing places road safety audit
ID6 GG119 Road Safety Audit guidance
ID7 Stoke Golding Neighbourhood Plan Submission version
ID8 Amendment to the Friends’ Statement of Case as a result of ID7
ID9 (a) Leicestershire Rural Evidence Base 2018; (b) Leicestershire Rural
Economy Evidence Base 2014
ID10 Facebook posts on the Stoke Golding Community Page (1 and 2 April 2021)
ID11 Written representation by Sheepy Parish Council
ID12 Email confirmation of the Local Highway Authority’s site visit
ID13 Statement of Mervyn Ward
ID14 CD109 Highway Link Design guidance
ID15 Statements of interested parties1 (a) Alan White (b) Tracey Chadwick (c)
Andrew Clover (d) Cllr Bill (e) Malcolm Lockett (f) Robert Crowfoot (g) Cllr
Furlong (h) Annabel Del Gesso (i) Jacquelyn Jones (k) William Sinclair (l) Cllr
Terheege (m) Nick Robinson (n) Katie Elliott (o) Karen Hardy (p) Julie
Butterworth (q) Anne Wigley (r) Andrew Parton (s) local resident
ID16 Consultations responses to original application (December 2019) from West
Leicestershire Clinical Commissioning Group and Leicestershire County
Council’s Children and Family Services
ID17 Updated responses from Ms Sinclair to questions from the Inspector
ID18 Supplementary note on five-year housing land supply from the appellant and
the Council
ID19 Revised large housing sites spreadsheet
ID20 Revised small housing sites spreadsheet
ID21 Scott schedule from appellant and the Council regarding housing land supply
ID22 Emails between the Council and Bloor Homes regarding Hinckley West
ID23 Heritage Addendum note from appellant in response to ID15(e)
ID24 Response from the appellant and the Council to the Inspector’s questions on
draft planning conditions and obligations
ID25 Amended Community Infrastructure Levy Compliance Statement
ID26 Signed and undated Section 106 agreement
ID27 The Friends’ closing submissions
ID28 Council’s closing submissions
ID29 Appellant’s closing submissions
ID30 Appellant’s reply to the closing submissions of the Friends and the Council
DOCUMENT RECEIVED AFTER INQUIRY CLOSED
1. Completed and executed Section 106 agreement
1 No ID15(j) exists as this was missed off in the numbering
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS (24)
1) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the
local planning authority not later than 18 months from the date of this
permission and the development shall be begun not later than one year
from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be
approved.
2) No development shall commence until plans and particulars of the
reserved matters relating to:
(a) the appearance of the development including the aspects of a building
or place that determine the visual impression it makes, including
proposed materials and finishes; and
(b) the landscaping of the site including treatment of private and public
space to enhance or protect the site's amenity through hard (boundary
treatments) and soft measures and details of boundary planting to
reinforce the existing landscaping at the site edges; and
(c) the layout of the site including, the location of electric vehicle
charging points, the way in which buildings, routes and open spaces are
provided, the housing mix, and the relationship of these buildings and
spaces outside the development. This should include a design statement
that sets out how consideration has been given to lower density to edges
of site and higher density along main routes; and
(d) the scale of each building proposed in relation to its surroundings
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved details.
3) No development shall commence until plans and particulars of the
accessibility within the site, circulation routes, and how these fit into the
surrounding access network have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried
out in accordance with the approved details.
4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the following approved plans: P18_2922-001-1 Rev B and ADC2042-
DR-002 Rev P4.
5) No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until the
access arrangements shown on plan ADC2042-DR-002 Rev P4 have been
implemented in full.
6) No development shall commence until a Construction Environmental
Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The plan shall detail how, during the site
preparation and construction phase of the development, the impact on
existing and proposed residential premises and the environment shall be
prevented or mitigated from dust, odour, noise, smoke, light and land
contamination. The plan shall detail how such controls will be monitored
and how construction traffic will be routed. The plan will provide a
procedure for the investigation of complaints. The approved details shall
be implemented throughout the course of the development.
7) Construction work on the development hereby permitted shall not take
place other than between the hours of 07:30 hrs and 18:00 hrs on
Mondays to Fridays and 08:00 hrs and 13:00 hrs on Saturdays and at no
time on Sundays and Public Holidays.
8) No development shall commence until a scheme for the investigation of
any potential land contamination on the site has been submitted to and
agreed in writing by the local planning authority which shall include
details of how any contamination shall be dealt with. The approved
scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and
any remediation works so approved shall be carried out prior to the
development first being occupied.
9) If during development, contamination not previously identified is found to
be present at the site, no further development shall take place until an
addendum to the scheme for the investigation of all potential land
contamination has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority, which shall include details of how the unsuspected
contamination shall be dealt with. Any remediation works so approved
shall be carried out prior to the first dwelling being occupied.
10) No development shall commence until drainage details for the disposal of
surface water have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented in full
before the development is first occupied.
11) No development shall commence until details in relation to the
management of surface water on site during construction of the
development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. Details should demonstrate how surface water will be
managed on site to prevent an increase in flood risk during the various
construction stages of development from initial site works through to
completion. This shall include temporary attenuation, additional
treatment, controls, maintenance and protection. Details regarding the
protection of any proposed infiltration areas should also be provided.
Once approved, the construction of the development shall then be
undertaken in accordance with these details.
12) No development shall commence until details in relation to the long-term
maintenance of the sustainable surface water drainage system on the
development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The system will be implemented in accordance with
the approved details and maintained in perpetuity. Details of the SuDS
Maintenance Plan should include for routine maintenance, remedial
actions and monitoring of the separate elements of the system and
should also include procedures that must be implemented in the event of
pollution incidents within the development site.
13) No development shall commence until the existing and proposed ground
levels of the site and proposed finished floor levels have been submitted
to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The development
shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
14) No development shall commence until a Biodiversity Management Plan
for the site which shall set out the site-wide strategy for protecting and
enhancing biodiversity including the detailed design of proposed
biodiversity enhancements and their subsequent management once the
development is completed, has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The submitted plan shall include a
Great Crested Newt Corridor, areas of open space and created habitats
including SUDs. All landscaping to informal play space and natural open
space should comprise native species wildflower grassland. Development
shall be implemented and thereafter maintained in accordance with the
approved Management Plan.
15) Any reserved matters application shall be accompanied by an updated
Badger Survey. The findings of the survey including a method statement
for the clearance of the site, shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The site clearance shall be carried
out in accordance with the approved details.
16) The layout submitted at reserved matters shall provide a natural
vegetation buffer zone of at least 5 metres alongside all retained
hedgerow which do not relate to plot boundaries and a 4.5 metre uncut
buffer provided as referenced in Section 3.1.2 of the Great Crested Newt
Mitigation Strategy dated February 2020.
17) During the construction period, none of the trees or hedges indicated to
be retained shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall be topped
or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans, without the
written approval of the local planning authority. If any of the trees or
hedges to be retained are removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies during
the construction period, a replacement shall be planted at the same place
during the first planting season following the completion of the
development. The size and species of the tree or hedge shall be agreed in
writing by the local planning authority prior to its planting.
18) All landscape planting used within the informal/semi-natural open space
and adjacent to the boundaries of the site shall be native species only,
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
19) No part of the development shall be occupied until a scheme detailing
improvements to the existing passing bays shown indicatively on drawing
ADC2042-DR-005 Rev P2 has been submitted to and agreed in writing by
the local planning authority. Thereafter, the approved scheme shall be
completed prior to first occupation of any dwelling.
20) No part of the development shall be occupied until the offsite works (new
passing bays) shown indicatively on drawing ADC2042-DR-005 Rev P2
and in detail on drawings ADC2042-DR-051 Rev P1, ADC2042-DR-052
Rev P1, ADC2042-DR-053 Rev P1, ADC2042-DR-054 Rev P1, ADC2042-
DR-055 Rev P1, ADC2042-DR-056 Rev P1, ADC2042-DR-057 Rev P1,
ADC2042-DR-058 Rev P1, ADC2042-DR-059 Rev P1, ADC2042-DR-060
Rev P1, ADC2042-DR-061 Rev P1 and ADC2042-DR-062 Rev P1 have
been completed, subject to Section 278 approval.
21) No development beyond damp proof course level shall commence until a
scheme that makes provision for waste and recycling storage and
collection across the site has been submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority. The details should address accessibility to
storage facilities and adequate collection point space at the adopted
highway boundary. The approved scheme shall be implemented in
accordance with the agreed details.
22) Upon first occupation of each individual residential property on the
development, residents shall be provided with a 'Waste Minimisation and
Recycling Pack'. The details of this Pack shall be first agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Leicestershire County
Council) and shall provide information to residents about sustainable
waste management behaviours. As a minimum, the Pack shall contain the
following:
• Measures to prevent waste generation;
• Information on local services in relation to the reuse of domestic
items;
• Information on home composting, incentivising the use of a
compost bin and/or food waste digester;
• Household Waste Recycling Centre location, opening hours and
facilities available;
• Collection days for recycling services; and
• Information on items that can be recycled.
23) Prior to the first occupation of the development, details of any external
lighting not within a residential curtilage shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. This information shall
include a layout plan with beam orientation and a schedule of equipment
proposed in the design (luminaire type, mounting height, aiming angles
and luminaire profiles). Light spill onto retained hedgerows and the brook
corridor shall be minimised to a value of 1lux or lower at the edge of
habitats. The lighting shall be installed, maintained and operated in
accordance with the approved details.
24) No development beyond damp proof course level shall commence until
full details for the provision of electronic communications infrastructure to
serve the development, including full fibre broadband connections, has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the
approved details and the infrastructure fully available prior to the first
occupation of each dwelling on the site.