470 homes and primary school at Burroughs Road Recreation Ground, Ratby, Leicester

What was proposed

The outline scheme proposed about 470 homes, a one-form-entry primary school, access, open space, landscaping, drainage and related infrastructure.

“Proposal: Outline application (with all matters reserved apart from access) for a phased mixed-use development comprising approx 470 dwellings (Use Class C3) and provision of 1FE Primary School (Use Class F1) and associated operations and infrastructure including but not limited to site re-profiling works, sustainable drainage systems, public open space, landscaping, habitat creation, internal roads/routes and upgrades to the public highway.”

“The outline application seeks permission for up to 470 dwellings, the delivery of a fully functioning Primary School, open space, access provision and associated works.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 32.7-hectare site contains fields, a recreation ground, woodland, public rights of way and land beside Ratby Conservation Area.

“The site comprises approximately 32.7 ha and lies on the western side of Ratby, off Burroughs Road. The application site comprises three fields and the greater portion of a fourth field, a recreation ground and a block of woodland to the north of Burroughs Road and a block of five fields to the south. The southern extents of the village are characterised by agricultural fields.”

“The site includes various Public Rights of Way which cross and border the application including Footpaths R44, R48, and R50, and also adjoins Restricted Byway R45 and Footpath R55. Bridleway R42 lies to the south of the site and Bridleway R121 follows a line to the west of the site from Burroughs Road to Markfield Road and on to Martinshaw Wood.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions and screening

Earlier permissions covered 90 homes and 75 homes, while environmental screening concluded that an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required.

“Under the Town and Country (Planning Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 there is a requirement to ‘screen’ certain types of major development or other industrial, agricultural schemes to ascertain whether they would have significant environmental effects and are considered to be EIA development. Under Schedule 2 of these Regulations there are thresholds and criteria that are applicable to certain types of development in order to be ‘Schedule 2 development’.”

“In this case, the development exceeds 5 hectares and so is considered to be Schedule 2 development. This type of development requires ‘screening’ to determine whether it requires an Environmental Impact Assessment.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the housing and primary school benefits outweighed the identified landscape and heritage harm, subject to mitigation and obligations.

“It is considered that this harm is outweighed by the public benefits of the supply of housing which are afforded substantial weight; the affordable housing which is afforded moderate weight; the land and contributions for the delivery of the primary school (beyond requirement for scheme itself) which is afforded substantial weight; the BNG benefits which are afforded limited weight; the National Forest enhancements which are afforded moderate weight and the social and…”

“Benefits Weight given Harms Weight given 470 new homes Substantial Landscape Significant 23 Affordable homes Moderate Heritage Significant Draft allocation in Regulation 19 Local Plan Limited Land and contributions for delivery of primary school (beyond requirement for scheme itself) Very substantial 10% Biodiversity Net Gain Limited National Forest enhancement Moderate Social and economic Moderate…”

Officer report

What consultees said

Most consultees raised no objection subject to safeguards, while the Woodland Trust, parish councils, Active Travel and Sport England objected on specific matters.

“Leicestershire County Council (LCC), Local Highway Authority (LHA) – subject to conditions and planning obligations • National Highways • Environment Agency • LCC Ecology – subject to conditions • LCC Archaeology – subject to conditions • LCC, Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) – subject to conditions • LCC Minerals and Waste • Historic England • Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council (HBBC) Drainage • HBBC Environmental Health – subject to conditions • HBBC Affordable…”

“Woodland Trust – Object. Impacts on Pear Tree Wood, Burroughs Wood (which includes an area of ancient woodland) and Martinshaw Wood. While additional information was submitted by the applicant, no further comments were provided but the issues raised are considered to be resolved.”

Officer report

What residents said

More than 1,000 households objected, citing countryside loss, wildlife, traffic, infrastructure, flooding, sewage, heritage, recreation and village identity.

“Impact on landscape character and openness • Loss of wildlife and open countryside • Traffic and Highway safety concerns • Inadequate local infrastructure provision • Unsustainable nature of the development • Biodiversity and Environmental Impact • Flood Risk Management concerns • Sewage concerns • Heritage and Conservation concerns including Loss of heritage assets…”

“Cumulative impact of this scheme and other permitted schemes currently under construction • Lack of community engagement and support by developer • Air Quality concerns • Precedent setting • Economic costs rather than true, community benefits • Loss of Greenspace and Community Recreation • Overpopulation and Loss of Village Identity • Non-compliance with Local and National Planning Policy • Disregards the priorities of local residents • The proposed development (numbers of…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Three objectors, the agent, a Ward Councillor and a Parish Councillor spoke about the application.

What members debated

Members acknowledged the objections and raised concerns, but considered that the harm did not substantially outweigh the benefits under the national planning balance.

“Members acknowledged the points raised by objectors, and expressed a number of concerns with scheme. However, it was noted that the harm caused by the development did not substantially outweigh the benefits as required by the NPPF. The Council also held mandatory housing targets set by the Government, with the presumption in favour of development where the Council was unable to demonstrate a Five-Year Housing Land Supply.”

“It was moved by Councillor Bray and seconded by Councillor Lynch that permission be granted.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A motion to approve was proposed and seconded, and the committee carried it after a refusal motion was not put to a vote.

“It was moved by Councillor Boothby and seconded by Councillor R Allen that permission be refused due to Policy DM4. As the second valid motion, this was not put to vote.”

“A vote was taken on the motion to approve, which was CARRIED and therefore:”

Minutes

The final decision

Outline permission was approved subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement, with delegated powers for final conditions and agreement details.

“(i) Outline Planning Permission, subject to Conditions and the signing of a Section 106 Legal Agreement, be approved.”

“(ii) The Planning Manager be given powers to determine the final detail and wording of planning conditions.”

Minutes