Bloor Homes Groby proposals

December 2025  In October the Spotlight reported that Hinckley and Bosworth Council had approved the next stage in the consultation for the local plan for the period up to 2045. The latest version had to address an increase in the borough wide housing target and potential employment land for allocation to meet identified need once quantified.

Land south of Sacheverell Way forming part of the M1/A46/Sacheverell Way triangle is being proposed for consideration, with a potential to deliver up to 170 dwellings by 2045. The Parish Council opposes this proposal, as did the October Parish Council Planning Committee, as the land is part of the Green Wedge and is not a sustainable site.

The Planning Committee added that if it is to be allocated the number of houses built should be reduced, and a medical centre site provided as part of the development.

A new home for Groby Surgery?

Unwelcome as a new housing site might be, a new home for Groby Surgery would be welcomed by many. The current premises on Rookery lane have served the village well, but the aged converted house is no longer thought to be compatible with a 21st century NHS. Despite an intensive search over the last 10 years no suitable and available replacement site has been found. The search has included a review of locations owned by Groby Parish Council but, whilst Fields in Trust restrictions on development allow premises for uses linked to recreation, they discourage construction of premises even for essential alternative community services such as health care.

A surprise development

It came a a surprise to Groby residents when Bloor Homes undertook an initial consultation with local homeowners in November. A leaflet was sent to 1500 homes. If ultimately approved the development could be complete early in the plan period, possibly by 2031.

“We are preparing an outline planning application,” explained Bloor Homes. “This is the first stage in the planning process which sets out broad principles of the development. If the outline planning application is approved by Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council, we will then need to prepare a more detailed planning application called a Reserved Matters application, which looks at finer details such as architecture, layout, materials etc.”

Bloor Homes emphasises that consultation on their emerging proposals for Groby were independent of the council’s Local Plan consultations, and residents were able to contribute to both processes. The builder has set up a website which gives much more information about their proposals and the steps they will take to ensure the site is sustainable, environmentally sound, and a pleasant place to live.

You can still comment

Although the consultation was only open for a few weeks and closed on 30 November, there is still the opportunity to comment. “We will be keeping the consultation website live and updated throughout the process and people can continue to submit comments and queries via the website or the consultation email address and telephone number provided, as well as register to receive email updates,” explained a spokesperson for Bloor Homes.

“We will provide information on the website about the outline planning application once it is submitted, and provide an email update to all who register to receive them via the website.”

Sally Smith, Planning Director at Bloor Homes East Midlands, added “We are conscious of the importance of ensuring that development generates investment into local infrastructure and we are keen to hear from local people on their priorities for investment in Groby.”

You can read all the articles by scrolling down the page 

Why are Bloors planting trees?

Readers who have seen what has taken place in the field that was the subject of a series of unsuccessful planning appeals by Bloors Homes may have been relieved to see that it was trees that were being planted, not foundations for houses. As our photograph shows, however, the planting of many hundreds of saplings has been limited to a belt of land estimated to be 15 foot wide along a large part of the perimeter of their land. The planting strip, which runs behind the cemetery and the Sacheverell Way facing boundary, has been fenced off.

The planting of trees, particularly in the areas in and around the National Forest is encouraged. And although the company are unable to build houses there this doesn't stop other legitimate uses such a tree planting. The comments of the planning enforcement officers at Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council are reported elsewhere in this edition and they confirm that the company has acted lawfully.

This has led to some residents to ask why they have carried out such dense planting on their boundary. Some of the varieties are very quick growing and in due course will require regular maintenance at the company's expense. They will also turn the public footpath that runs between the planting and the cemetery hedge into a not very attractive corridor. The planting is so close to the footpath that eventually there may be an overhang of branches, perhaps creating a tunnel effect.

Planning inspector's comments

When the company's latest appeal against the refusal of planning permission to build housing on the field was heard the Planning Inspector considered the impact that it might have on the Green Wedge and the perception of separation between the local villages.

The Inspector wrote that “At the time when the site visit took place, the upper parts of buildings in Ratby were clearly visible to the west of the site. For at least a portion of the year, it would be apparent on the ground that the countryside between the settlements was significantly decreased, diminishing the perception of their identity as separate villages. Similarly, travellers using the road between Ratby and Groby would become aware of the closer proximity of these settlements, which would take on the character of being divided by a narrow neck of open land, rather than the current impression of being set within countryside. The area retains a largely rural character, despite the open, non-agricultural uses on adjoining land, and the appeal site contributes to this impression.”

He added that “There is no indication of a right of public access to the appeal site, and the Green Wedge Review does not suggest a recreational function of the land. Notwithstanding this, the existing field gives an open, rural aspect to its surroundings, including the footpaths bordering the site. The character of those paths would change with development of the land, and, to the extent that they are used by walkers, and by those enjoying the wider countryside, there would be a reduction in the overall recreational value.”

When the trees have matured some argue that the open, rural aspect which the Inspector saw would no longer be evident, and the decreased countryside between Ratby and Groby would diminish the perception of their identity as separate villages. In addition the villages would take on the character of being divided by a narrow neck of open land, rather than the current impression of being set within countryside. This would be the loss of the very qualities that the Inspector commented on.

An intentional or unintentional consequence?

Whether or not this change in the landscape is an intentional or unintentional consequence of the tree planting is something that readers can only speculate about, but the matter did arise during the Clerk's Report at the December Parish Council meeting. Members were told by the Chairman that a source close to Bloors alleged that the company is planting trees around their site so the argument about breaking up the views will no longer be applicable in about 10 years time when they put another planning application in to build housing on the site. The current Borough 10 year plan period ends in 2026. Although this is hearsay the same explanation was given to another resident from a completely unconnected source.

Clearly these reports indicate that the company is carrying out work quite legally on their own land. But hearsay is no basis for reporting such matters to readers, and an explanation from Bloors about what is being done and why would clarify the matter.

The company was told that there is a feeling that the company has a 10 year horizon in sight, by which time the planting will have matured and potentially undermined one of the reasons for refusal of the planning application. An official statement or clarification of the report for the Groby Spotlight was requested in order to ensure a balanced perspective. Bloors preferred not to comment at the present time.

March 2015

Bloor Homes appeal dismissed -text of Decision Letter

Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 20-23 January 2015 

Site visit made on 23 January 2015 by John Chase MCD DipArch RIBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 

Decision date: 11 March 2015 

Appeal Ref: APP/K2420/A/12/2181080 Land East of Groby Village Cemetery, Ratby Road, Groby, Leicestershire 

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. 

• The appeal is made by Bloor Homes East Midlands Ltd against the decision of Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council. 

• The application Ref 12/00250/FUL, dated 19 March 2012, was refused by notice dated 27 July 2012. 

• The development proposed is the erection of 91 dwellings with garages, parking spaces, open space, landscaping and associated infrastructure. 

• This decision supersedes that issued on 22 January 2013. That decision on the appeal was quashed by order of the High Court. 

Decision 

1. The appeal is dismissed. 

Procedural Matters 

2. At the Inquiry, the appellants submitted a Unilateral Undertaking to make provision for a range of obligations, including contributions towards infrastructure and the supply of affordable housing. In the latter case, there is a clear need for such accommodation, and the requirement arises out of Policy 15 of the Core Strategy1 . In other respects, the obligations do not bear on the main issues, which form the basis on which the appeal is dismissed, and there is no need to determine whether they satisfy the tests in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations, 2010. 

3. This decision is made afresh, or ‘de novo’, and replaces an earlier appeal which was quashed by the courts. There was some debate at the inquiry whether the previous version was a material consideration and, if so, the weight to be attached to it. Whatever conclusion may be reached on this point, and as will become apparent from the reasoning below, there is sufficient change in circumstances arising in the two years since the earlier decision was written for the conclusions of the previous inspector to have little bearing on those now reached.

Main Issues 

4. The main issues are: 1) whether the Council are able to demonstrate a five year housing supply, 2) the effect of the development on the Green Wedge, and 3) whether the proposal is premature so as to undermine the preparation of the Site Allocations Plan. 

Reasons 

5. The appeal site is an open field of approximately 4.4ha, forming part of a larger triangular tract of land, which includes a cemetery, and which is bordered on two sides by roads, and on the third by the line of a former tram track, which separates it from residential development in the village of Groby. There is a public footpath on its western boundary, and permissive footpaths on the tram track and on a narrow strip of open land to the south. The wider area contains playing fields attached to the Brookvale High School, and open countryside. To the south west is the M1 motorway, in a cutting, and then the village of Ratby. The open land between Groby and Ratby, including the appeal site, is designated by Policy 9 of the Core Strategy as part of a Green Wedge. It is the appellants’ intention to construct 91 dwellings on the land, of which 40% would be affordable housing. The properties would be in a range of sizes, set around an estate road served by a new access from Ratby Road. 

Housing Supply 

6. Paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) creates the intention to boost significantly the supply of housing, by, amongst other measures, requiring planning authorities to identify their full, objectively assessed need (FOAN) for market and affordable housing, and to identify a five year supply of deliverable sites to meet this requirement. During the Inquiry, the main parties agreed a schedule setting out their respective positions in achieving this five year supply. In summary, the Council claim that they are able to demonstrate 5.49 years, whereas the appellants consider that it is 3.68 years. 

7. In calculating these estimates both main parties have used a FOAN of 450 dwellings per annum (dpa). This figure is derived from the Core Strategy, adopted 2009, which in turn is based on the, now withdrawn, Regional Strategy. However, it is the Council’s contention that it is also supported by more recent data. The appellants do not accept this to be so, but are willing to adopt the figure for the purposes of this appeal alone. There is, therefore, no reason to prefer an alternative FOAN in the present case. 

8. The main outstanding areas of difference are i) whether the existing shortfall in meeting housing need should be made up throughout the term of the Core Strategy (the ‘Liverpool’ method), or during the next five years (the ‘Sedgefield’ method); ii) whether the shortfall amounts to persistent under delivery, so as to attract the 20% buffer described in NPPF para 47; and iii) whether the Council have over-estimated the level of supply.

 Liverpool v Sedgefield Methods  

9. Whilst it is the appellants’ contention that the Sedgefield method has been endorsed in the majority of appeals, there have been instances of a preference for the Liverpool method in this Council area. This approach gains support  from the Core Strategy Inspector’s report , which notes that the supply trajectory indicated an undersupply in the early years of the plan period, but that there would be a surplus later, when the planned Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUEs) would come on stream. It was anticipated that the shortfall would be addressed after 2017/18. 

10. However, the Core Strategy Inspector based his conclusion on a trajectory which showed a much more rapid delivery of housing in the early years of the plan than has actually occurred, and on the expectation of an earlier adoption of the Site Allocations Plan3 . Preparation of this plan has been delayed, as has delivery from the SUEs, with an expectation that Barwell and Earl Shilton will produce only 220 units within the forthcoming five years4 . 

11. Having regard to the uncertainty inherent in supply projections, and the cyclical nature of economic conditions, there is some strength to the appellants’ argument that delaying the remedy of the shortfall until later in the plan period would increase the likelihood that it would never be fully addressed. It is also the case that the current under-supply represents an unmet need which exists now, rather than at a later date, and that the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) indicates that planning authorities should aim to deal with any undersupply in the first five years of the plan period, where possible. 

12. The Council draw attention to the recent Secretary of State appeal decision at Sketchley House, Burbage5 , within this Borough, which, amongst other matters, notes that the use of the Liverpool method would achieve the FOAN over the course of the plan period, and that the PPG advice is mainly aimed at the preparation of new plans. However, it falls short of clearly preferring the Liverpool approach, noting that a five year supply in that case could not be identified whichever method was used. 

13. Overall, it is the conclusion in this appeal that the objective of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to boost significantly the supply of housing would be best served by making up the existing undersupply during the shorter term, in accordance with the Sedgefield methodology. 

Whether there has been persistent under-delivery 

14. Again, appeal decisions in the Borough have varied in their approach to this matter. Recent decisions include that at Sketchley House, referred to above, which did not discover persistent under-delivery, noting that, whilst the housing target had been met only once since the adoption of the Core Strategy, there was no requirement that the delivery of dwellings should always match the annual average provision. By comparison, decisions at Stanton Under Bardon Primary School and Ashby Road, Hinckley came to the opposite conclusion. 

15. The evidence presented in this case indicates that, since the plan period commenced in 2006/7, there has been a deficit in 6 of the 8 years, amounting to a cumulative shortfall of 630 dwellings, or about 18% of the requirement. However, over a longer period, between 2001 and 2014, there has been an overall surplus of 355 units. There is some merit in taking a longer view than the period which is mainly encompassed by the recent recession in the housing market. The Planning Practice Guidance notes that the assessment of the local delivery record is likely to be more robust if a longer term is taken, which reflects the peaks and troughs of the housing market cycle. There are grounds to consider that persistent under-delivery has not been demonstrated, and a buffer of 5% would be sufficient to ensure choice and competition in the market and to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply. 

Supply of Housing Land 

16. The Council claim a five year stock of deliverable sites for 2787 dwellings, the appellants 2319, a difference of 468 units. The areas of disagreement include the level of discount necessary to reflect the likelihood that some of the identified supply will not be delivered. The Council’s figure of 4% for larger sites is based on records of the rate of lapses of planning permission, but the appellants argue that sites may also be delayed during the currency of a planning permission. Whilst there is no evidential base for their preferred figure of 10%, there are examples of a discount at this level being accepted in other appeals, and it is not wholly out of keeping with the level of uncertainty which is a characteristic of housing assessments. 

17. There is also a case to support the removal of potential sites, and those where construction has started, if there has been no progress over an extended period. However, in an improving market, and with the passage of time, it seems likely that some of these sites will come forward and it would not be reasonable to wholly eliminate their number. For the purposes of this appeal, a middle position is taken between the parties’ figures by discounting half of those in this category. 

18. Finally, a strategic site has been identified to the west of Hinckley, in the control of the present appellants, which could deliver some dwellings within five years. A number of documents were provided to the Inquiry indicating both the developer’s expectation that the site would come forward, and a range of potential building rates. However, although the proposal has attracted relatively few objections at this stage, there is a likelihood that their number and substance would increase once the proposals become more advanced, and, in the absence of a planning permission or adopted site allocations plan, there is no certainty about either the timing or nature of the development. In terms of the definition at footnote 11 of the NPPF, the site cannot be considered deliverable for the time being. 

Whether the Council can demonstrate a five year housing supply 

  19. It is the outcome of this analysis that the Council estimate of the supply of deliverable sites should be reduced to approximately 2400 dwellings. If the FOAN is adjusted to take up the outstanding shortfall, in accordance with the Sedgefield method, and a 5% buffer is applied, the total requirement amounts to 553 dpa8 . Therefore, the supply would equate to about 4.34 years, indicating that the Council are not able to demonstrate a five year housing supply. 

 The Green Wedge 

20. The site falls within the Rothley Brook Meadow Green Wedge, which is described in the Core Strategy as intended to protect the green infrastructure of the Borough. Policy 9 sets out the acceptable uses, which do not include residential development. It goes on to require that any development in the Green Wedge should meet a number of criteria, including: retaining its function; retaining and creating green networks between the countryside and urban open spaces; retaining and enhancing public access, especially for recreation; and retaining the visual appearance. The Core Strategy also makes reference to a review of the Green Wedge, with a document being issued in December 20119 following a draft version in September of that year. 

The Status of Policy 9 

21. Before proceeding further it is necessary to establish whether the application of Policy 9 is outweighed by material considerations, and in particular the provisions of the NPPF. Para 14 indicates that, where a development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, then permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Para 215 requires that weight should be given to relevant policies according to their consistency with the NPPF. 

22. Policy 9 is neither absent nor silent, which is a matter confirmed in the Bloor Homes judgement10 on the previous appeal, and there is no indication that circumstances have changed so as to lead to a different conclusion on this point. However, where previously it was determined that the Council could demonstrate a five year housing supply, for the reasons set out above, that is no longer the case. In these circumstances, NPPF para 49 requires that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date. 

23. In this respect, it is the appellants’ contention that Policy 9 falls within the scope of para 49 by being relevant to the supply of housing. Reference is made to the determination in appeals in Honeybourne and Winchcombe11, for example, albeit with some variation in circumstances, and to the judgement in Cotswold12, which found that a policy restricting housing development outside development boundaries was relevant to the supply of housing. On the other hand, a policy concerning a Green Wedge in the William Davis case13 was considered not to relate to the supply of housing. If these judgements are to be distinguished, the policy in Cotswold related to all areas outside development boundaries, whereas William Davis referred to a specifically defined area of Green Wedge. This distinction is also made in the South Northamptonshire case14, where a policy which prevented development in the open countryside was deemed to be relevant to the supply of housing, but, as a very general policy, it could be contrasted with policies to protect specific areas or features, such as gaps between settlements. This decision goes on to note that whether a particular policy falls within the scope of para 49 is a matter of planning judgement. 

24. In this instance, Policy 9 appears closer to the circumstances of William Davis than to those in Cotswold. This part of the Green Wedge, whilst of some extent and crossing several local authority boundaries, has a relatively narrow and lineal form, passing between Leicester and the villages on its north western side. It covers a limited proportion of each of the constituent authorities and neither this, nor the other area of Green Wedge in this Borough, amounts to a blanket restriction on development outside settlements. In this respect, it cannot be construed as subject to a “counterpart” policy, as described in para 47 of the South Northamptonshire judgement. Its purposes, set out as assessment criteria in the Green Wedge Review, are to prevent the merger of settlements; to guide development form; to provide a green lung into urban areas; and, to act as a recreational resource. The intention of the policy is to protect a tract of land from development which might undermine these purposes. Overall, there are grounds to conclude that Policy 9 is not a policy relevant to the supply of housing in the terms set out in NPPF para 49, and should not therefore be considered out of date for that reason. 

25. Nor are there grounds to consider that the Green Wedge Policy has fallen out of date because of the passage of time or changes in circumstances. It is a long standing policy, which, as the appellants point out, was not intended to restrict development but to ensure that open space was incorporated into the urban areas on the edge of Leicester. This is a continuing objective. 

26. Turning to the implications of NPPF para 215, any weight given to Policy 9 would be diminished by a lack of consistency with the policies of the NPPF. However, whilst the NPPF does not specifically refer to Green Wedges, there is no reason to consider that the objectives that Policy 9 is intended to serve, including the separation of settlements to retain their identity, and promotion of the recreational aspects of countryside, are inconsistent with either the policies or underlying principles of the NPPF. 

27. It is also alleged that Policy 9 is inconsistent because it does not incorporate the cost-benefit approach which was identified in the Colman judgement15 . However, the policy considered in that case, which applied to all of the countryside, was clearly prohibitive of development, whereas, by the appellants’ own acknowledgement, Policy 9 is a permissive policy. By implication, uses which fall outside those specified will not be acceptable because they would damage the function of the Green Wedge, but it is open to a developer to show that an alternative use would not cause such damage. It is certainly true that the policy does not explicitly state that its objectives could be overcome by the delivery of benefits, but its omission would have little practical effect on the operation of Policy 9, because it is always open to an applicant to argue that material considerations outweigh the development plan16 . 

28. There are adequate grounds to decide that Policy 9 is not out of date in terms of NPPF para 14, and is consistent with the NPPF, so as to retain weight in the consideration of this appeal. The question arises, therefore, as to whether, and to what degree, the proposal would be in conflict with that policy by causing harm to the function of the Green Wedge. In this respect, the purposes derived from the Green Wedge Review, referred to above, were adopted by both main parties as a means of assessing the impact, and there is no reasonto seek alternative criteria. Of these, the appellants point out that guiding development form is not engaged because it refers to amendments to the Green Wedge to shape the development of new communities, and it is accepted this has limited relevance to the present situation. The other purposes are considered below. 

The Impact of the Development on the Green Wedge 

29. It is contended that the Green Wedge plays a limited role in separating Groby and Ratby because of the lack of inter-visibility, and because of the dividing effect of the M1 Motorway. On this latter point, it is certainly true that the motorway is a physical barrier. However, its location in a cutting means that it is an audible, rather than visual presence, so that, to the observer, there is continuity of landscape to the edge of Ratby. Nor is it accepted that the settlements would remain effectively concealed from one another. At the time when the site visit took place, the upper parts of buildings in Ratby were clearly visible to the west of the site. For at least a portion of the year, it would be apparent on the ground that the countryside between the settlements was significantly decreased, diminishing the perception of their identity as separate villages. Similarly, travellers using the road between Ratby and Groby would become aware of the closer proximity of these settlements, which would take on the character of being divided by a narrow neck of open land, rather than the current impression of being set within countryside. The area retains a largely rural character, despite the open, non-agricultural uses on adjoining land, and the appeal site contributes to this impression. 

30. Part of the function of the Green Wedge as a green lung is to provide a connection between urban areas and the open countryside. The lineal form of the wedge, passing between settlements, gives close accessibility to rural land, as well as a link to the wider countryside beyond. At a more local level, this part of the Green Wedge is adjacent to Cowpen Spinney, an area of green space which protrudes into the built-up part of Groby, to the east of the former tramway. Development of the site would largely surround the spinney with urban development, and remove its connection with the countryside, so diminishing accessibility through it to the rural area. 

31. There is no indication of a right of public access to the appeal site, and the Green Wedge Review does not suggest a recreational function of the land. Notwithstanding this, the existing field gives an open, rural aspect to its surroundings, including the footpaths bordering the site. The character of those paths would change with development of the land, and, to the extent that they are used by walkers, and by those enjoying the wider countryside, there would be a reduction in the overall recreational value. 

32. Although the assessment of these criteria would indicate damage to the function of the Green Wedge, it is suggested by the appellants that the nature of the site and its surroundings are such as to minimise any harm, and account is taken of their landscape analysis in this respect. It is certainly the case that there is existing vegetation on the boundaries of the site, which would be reinforced as part of the development, and the housing would be set in from the surrounding roads. Nonetheless, whilst in its present condition the site is not especially prominent in the area, tending to blend into the general landscape, new housing would be sufficiently visible, both through and between boundary planting, as to have a decisive effect on the character of the site and  its surroundings. It is the case that the road system around the triangle of land is an urbanising influence, but there is no substantial reason to conclude that the outer edges of the appeal site would provide a preferable or more logical boundary to this part of the settlement than the former tramway, which, by being raised on an embankment and surrounded by mature trees, creates a clear demarcation of the nearest part of the village. 

33. There was a distinct change of approach to the assessment of this part of the Green Wedge between the draft Green Wedge Review of September 2011 and the final version in December. Where the earlier report noted that the appeal site did not achieve the objectives of the Green Wedge, and had a more limited impact on its overall functioning than other more sensitive areas, the later version found that it did perform the separation of settlements and helped to guide development form. The appellants question whether this change of view was justified by the altered circumstances identified in the report, and this point is noted. Nonetheless, limited weight can be attributed to the superseded draft Review. Similarly, the site was identified as one of 28 ‘preferred sites’ in Groby in the Draft Preferred Options Report of 200917, but excluded in the PreSubmission Report of 201418, and, again, limited weight can be given to the earlier draft document. The 2013 SHLAA19 does not wholly exclude consideration of the site for housing, but acknowledges that its Green Wedge status may be a severe limitation. 

34. Regard is also had to a number of other sites, some of which are in adjoining Boroughs, where planning permission has been granted for development in the Green Wedge, including the substantial housing and commercial scheme in Glenfield20. By their nature, each case has different characteristics, and, even if it is necessary to develop part of the Green Wedge to meet the requirement for housing land, each case is assessed on its merits, and no general principle may be derived to indicate that circumstances will invariably overcome the need to retain Green Wedge land. 

Conclusions on the Green Wedge 

35. For the reasons given, Policy 9 is not outweighed by the provisions of the NPPF, and the development would be contrary this policy by having a harmful effect on the function of the Green Wedge. 

Prematurity 

36. Part of the Council’s grounds of refusal state that the development would be premature to the plan making process by allocating a site and amending the Green Wedge boundary ahead of consideration and consultation of the Site Allocations and Generic Development Policies DPD. In response, the previous Inspector21 noted that para 17 of the NPPF indicates that planning should be genuinely plan led, and that permission now would undermine the role of the Council and local communities in this process. At that time, it was anticipated that the Site Allocations Plan would be subject to examination at the beginning of 2014. 

 37. In the event the programme has slipped, with the Plan still to complete its consultation period at the time of writing, and the examination expected no earlier than the summer of 2015. This follows a series of slippages which have occurred since adoption of the Core Strategy in 2009. In addition, the previous Inspector found a five year housing supply, whereas its absence in this case creates an increased need to allocate sites in advance of the Plan. The Planning Practice Guidance notes that refusal of planning permission on the grounds of prematurity will seldom be justified where a Local Plan has yet to be submitted for examination, and, unless the effect would be so significant as to undermine matters central to the emerging plan. 

38. The Site Allocations Plan has not reached the stage of examination, and there is no indication that the grant of planning permission would have a determining effect on it. Whilst there is a need to support a plan led system, the delivery of that plan has become protracted, and there is a requirement for land in advance of its adoption. In the circumstances, it is not accepted that the proposal is premature so as to undermine the preparation of the Site Allocations Plan. 

Sustainability and Overall Conclusions 

39. The presumption in favour of development in the NPPF applies to sustainable development, which is defined in para 7 as having economic, social and environmental components. The provision of market and affordable housing would satisfy both economic and social aspects of sustainability. In circumstances where there is an identified shortfall in the supply of housing, and a clear need for affordable dwellings in the area, the scheme would help to meet the NPPF objective of boosting the supply of housing in order to contribute to a wide choice of homes. Similarly, there would be the environmental benefit of public access to the open space on the estate, albeit this would be of limited extent and closely related to the new housing. 

40. Core Strategy Policy 8 seeks to support local services in Groby and ensure local people have access to a range of housing by the provision of a minimum of 110 new homes. Whilst the draft Site Allocations Plan aims to meet these needs on alternative sites, the plan has not yet been to examination, which diminishes the weight that may be applied to it, and, in any event, there is little evidence that exceeding this minimum level would be unduly harmful to the village, especially as any additional pressure on infrastructure could be met by planning obligations. The site is in an accessible location, with facilities available without the need to rely on private vehicles, and there is no reason to consider that the increased population could not be successfully absorbed into the community of Groby. 

41. Set against these positive attributes is the objective of Policy 9 to secure a Green Wedge to contribute to the life of urban residents. The site is within the area of open land separating Groby and Ratby and, on a wider scale, forms part of a linked network of open spaces to provide a green lung and connection with the surrounding countryside. Its development would undermine the identified purposes of the Green Wedge, for the reasons set out above. In these respects it would not meet those aspects of the social and environmental components of sustainability which concern the need to protect the natural environment and the well being of local residents. 

42 In forming a judgement between these competing objectives, the location of the site within a relatively narrow portion of the Green Gap is of particular importance. The projection of the urban area of Groby towards Ratby would diminish the width of the gap to the degree that its role in separating these settlements would be seriously undermined. This, combined with the loss of part of the green lung, and the harmful effect on the recreational value of adjoining land, is of sufficient importance to outweigh the positive aspects of the scheme, so as to render it an unsustainable form of development overall, for which there is no presumption in favour. Despite the conclusions that the Council are not able demonstrate a five year housing supply, and that the proposal would not be premature to the emerging site allocations plan, the conflict with Policy 9 renders the proposal contrary to the development plan, and the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. 

John Chase 

INSPECTOR 

December 2013

 No decision until January

The Judicial Review of the Planning Inspector's decision to uphold the refusal of planning permission for the Bloors site next to Groby cemetery was heard  at the High Court inBirmingham on December 16th 2013.   The judge 'reserved'  his decision until January, which means he has given himself time to consider the evidence presented before reaching a final conclusion.  

"All the points raised by the Barrister representing Bloors were robustly addressed," said Councillor Peter Batty who attended the hearing.  " The Borough Council,  as an interested party, were also represented by a Barrister, the same one who was at the original Public Inquiry.  Whilst the case presented by Bloors sought largely to re-open arguments on the evidence presented at the Public Inquiry, a point firmly made to Jeremy Cahill QC (for Bloors) by the Judge, worringly one of the 3 points of procedure being challenged had to be conceded.  However, it is debatable whether the point on discounting 10% for "under deliverability" would on its' own be sufficiently serious to warrant a reversal of the Inspector's decision."

Cllr Batty described the  view at the conclusion of the Hearing as a " close call" as to which way the decision could go.  "The most likely outcome if the judgement goes against us is that the Borough Council would be required to look at the planning application again, but it would be up to the Borough Council to grant or reject.  New evidence at that time could be considered as part of the determination, such as the removal of the site from the Council's preferred options and the greater sustainability of sites within the Parish to meet Groby's required numbers as opposed to a site outside of the Parish."

November 2013

Bloors court challenge next month

A quick look at local housing issues

The availability of housing land in the village and the impact that development may have on overstretched resources is a cloud which never seems far away. In fact the cloud is back, on this occasion it takes the form of the judicial review of the Inspector's refusal of planning consent to Bloors for their site next to Groby cemetery. The company is making a challenge on legal, not planning, grounds to seek an order from the High Court quashing the decision of the Planning Inspector. This will go to court in Birmingham on 16th December. In the meantime work continues on the quest to find sites suitable for development in what most people already consider an overcrowded village.

Site suitability

Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council is required to carry out a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) to identify future sources of land for housing. The SHLAA will provide the evidence for future allocations documents, including the Site Allocations and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document. Anyone with a piece of land they consider suitable for development can submit details to the council, but it's important to remember that the SHLAA does not represent policy and will not determine whether a site should be allocated or granted permission for development. It will simply determine which sites are suitable, available and achievable for housing development.

The 2013 Review was completed in September and can be seen online at http://www.hinckley-bosworth.gov.uk/info/856/local_plan_2006-2026_formerly_ldf/429/strategic_housing_land_availability_assessment_shlaa/2 . Appendix 9 of the document contains a full listing of the sites but does not include addresses. The more useful Appendix 10, which will include settlement overview maps and assessment forms, plans and photographs of the assessed sites, is not online yet.

"Appendix 10 which includes all the site proformas and plans are still being designed before being loaded onto the Council’s website," explained a spokesperson. "If individual site proformas are requested by members of the public they will be made available in advance of them being placed on the website."

It will not be an easy document to review the sites being put forward to the Council until Appendix 10 is available. However early indications suggest there may again be controversial locations, some new such as the former A50 behind Leicester Road put forward by Leicestershire County Council, and some which have been around the block a few times already.

Amongst all this the affordable housing issue has not been forgotten, and at the November meeting the Parish Council backed the report prepared from the consultation earlier this year.

April 2013

The chill wind that blows from Westminster

The latest development in the Bloors saga

It's been the topic of conversation for weeks, but hopefully will have eased by the time this Spotlight drops through your letterbox.  The Jet Stream position and the cold wind from the east  has dragged out the winter into what we normally expect to be spring.  But anyone standing watching the sheep in the field that Bloors want to develop next to Groby cemetery  may sense another chill wind – one that won't just affect Groby for 2013 but could have repercussions for every subsequent year and every subsequent generation.

Back in December 2012 the Planning Inspector heard the appeal by Bloors against the refusal of planning permission for a housing development on the land.  The Spotlight reported that if the builder was successful local residents may be left wondering whether they have been flattened by a virtual bulldozer or trampled under a coach and horses. 

The virtual bulldozer is the need for housing and the belief by some that it is the Government view that only the construction industry can save the economy. This has led to  a new streamlined version of planning legislation that has a presumption in favour of sustainable development at it's heart. 

However, if a council can demonstrate that it has a 5 year supply of sites suitable for development it may still have grounds to say no, though developers who can validly challenge the 5 year supply figures can drive a coach and horses through a decision to refuse planning permission. 

Pessimism then relief

There was fairly widespread pessimism about the likely outcome of the appeal but the ink was hardly dry on the Spotlight when the report of the Inspector came in record time supporting the decision of the Borough Council.  Anxiety turned to relief amongst those who oppose the development, despite the knowledge that there was still an element of risk.  Bloors have now made a challenge on legal, not planning, grounds to seek an order from the High Court quashing the decision of the Planning Inspector.  Having come this far and spent so much money on a series of planning applications for the site it is clearly good commercial sense for the company to spend a little more challenging the decision to try and clear the final hurdle. 

When the Inspector's decision was awaited the view amongst those who know about these things was that it could go either way.   After a hearing which lasted days the speed of the decision was a surprise, as was it's length – just  5 pages.    Bloors legal team will probably have carefully analysed those 5 pages and reviewed all the evidence of the hearing.  To use a term like 'forensic examination' of the evidence at the appeal hearing and the report of the Inspector may sound rather over dramatic, but the stakes are  high. 

Given the legal resources and expertise in dealing with such  matters available to the company  their legal challenge may contain plenty  for the High Court to consider.  So now the wait for a decision starts all over again.  And it may be a long wait.  “These things can take ages – William Davis and Jelson challenged an adverse appeal decision for their site at Coalville and it took 13 months to get a date,” a spokesman for Bloors commented. 

The chill wind from Westminster

Hopefully our weather may be improving but the chill wind from Westminster is set to blow for some time as the Government pins it's hopes of an economic recovery on the building industry and reform of the planning rules.  

With the debate over a five year supply of sites in the Borough Council area still continuing the comments of Nick Boles, the Planning Minister,  will not comfort those who want to retain the field as open countryside.  The Daily Telegraph reports that he told senior figures from the property industry that only if councils had “five years supply of immediately developable and deliverable sites” would they “get to make the decisions.”  If they haven't the Planning Inspector will make the decisions “according to the policies in the NPPF and the presumption of sustainable development.”

On the other hand his comments may please developers, their employees, their materials suppliers and their potential customers.  To misquote the old saying it's a chill Westminster wind that blows nobody any good.

January 2013

Those readers with the inclination and tenacity to read all the articles that have appeared in the Spotlight on the subject of planning and development over the last few years will no doubt be pleased to hear some of the comments of A J Davison. He is the Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to determine the appeal by Bloors against the decision of Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council to refuse planning permission for a housing development on land next to Groby cemetery. 

The articles reflected the tortuous journey that both residents, councillors and Borough planning officers took that was designed to provide a blueprint for the future development of the area and the issue, probably considered by residents to be the most important one, of how many new dwellings should be added to Groby, and where should they be built.

The future shape of Groby

No doubt many trees were cut down to provide the raw material for the profusion of documents that the process produced and the consultations that followed. Although the journey is not yet complete at the end of the tunnel we see not the light but the final version of the Site Allocations and Generic Development Control Policies Development Plan Document (SAGDCP).  This will tell us the future shape of Groby and the rest of the Borough. The SAGDCP Preferred Options Report was duly published and was followed by a public consultation that ended in April 2009. A pre-submission draft  is due to be published this August and it is hoped that it will be submitted to the Secretary of State early next year. The Bloors site was earmarked as a preferred option for housing development in the consultation draft, to the horror of most Groby residents.  With the Government throwing all the cards relating to planning law in the air, and the developer pressing to build on this site before the publication of the Council's final views concerning site allocations, residents were starting to wonder whether the long protracted process, the time and the effort, had been worth it. 

Mr Davison, the Inspector, had to approach his task without the baggage and emotion that residents carry, but his decision clearly indicates that resident's expectations that no approval should be given in anticipation that the final site allocations document will select this site for development were not unreasonable.  There should be no 'prematurity', no 'jumping the gun.' 

“The local community, both as individuals and through the Parish Councils, have been actively involved in the consultation process”, he said “It may be that this process will result in the appeal site being allocated for housing development. To grant planning permission at this time, however, would pre-empt a decision that should properly be made through the development plan process. It would render futile the work done by the Council and the contributions made by the local community, thereby reducing public confidence in the planning process and would be contrary to the spirit of paragraphs 12 and 17 of the 2012 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).” 

The words “render futile the work done by the Council and the contributions made by the local community, thereby reducing public confidence in the planning process” will be warmly received by those who wondered whether participating in the process had been productive or a complete waste of time. 

The Hinckley and Bosworth Core Strategy, adopted in December 2009, envisages 9000 homes being built in the Borough between 2006 and 2026, at an average of 450 homes a year. The Parish of Groby has to provide sites for just 110 of these and as reported last month a five year supply of housing can become a critical factor in the win/lose equation. On this occasion the Inspector thought that the method used by the Borough is a recognised way of calculating housing supply. 

“Given the inherent uncertainties in any prediction of future supply and the fact that it is a method that chimes with the approach in the Core Strategy, I consider that it does provide a reasonable basis for assessing future supply,” Mr Davison decided. “On that basis I conclude that the Council has shown that it has a five year supply of housing land.” 

Green wedge issues 

The other contentious issue related to the Green Wedge. In 2011 a methodology for the review was agreed by the various Leicestershire Authorities for conducting the review of Green Wedges currently in progress. The Inspector noted that this site has been considered at the Local Plan Inquiry in 1996/97, the Inquiry into the 2009 Core Strategy and subsequently the 2011 appeal decision. The Inspectors all concluded that development would detract from the open character and appearance of the area. 

When the review is completed it may be that the Green Wedge boundary in the area will change and the site will be allocated for housing, but “that is far from being a foregone conclusion,” he said. “While taking account of the possible future changes to the boundary of the Green Wedge in this area, I must consider the appeal proposal in the light of the development plan as it stands at present. I consider that the proposed development would detract from the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with Policy 9 of the Core Strategy. The Core Strategy is up to date, having been adopted in 2009, and I see no reason to disagree with the conclusion reached in the 2011 appeal decision.” 

What next? 

For the moment the threat of development on this site has receded, but residents will anxiously await the publication of the draft site allocation proposals later this year. In the meantime the company is considering its options, which may include making an application under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 within 6 weeks of the decision. Section 288 provides for challenges where an aggrieved person wishes to obtain an order quashing the decision of a Planning Inspector or the Secretary of State on an appeal. It can only relate to legal matters not planning judgement. 

Read the full report

December 2012

Will it be the steamroller or the coach and horses?

An update  on the Bloors planning appeal

Groby will have to wait for the Planning Inspector's decision to see if Bloors lose their appeal against the refusal of planning permission for a housing development on land next to the cemetery. If Bloors are successful local residents may be left wondering whether they have been flattened by a virtual bulldozer or trampled under a coach and horses.

The virtual bulldozer is the need for housing and the belief by some that it is the Government view that only the construction industry can kick start the economy. This has led to the bonfire of planning legislation and it's replacement with a new streamlined version that has a presumption in favour of sustainable development at it's heart.

However, if a council can demonstrate that it has a 5 year supply of sites suitable for development it may still have the equivalent of one of those men that you sometimes see at roadworks holding a stop/go sign. But if developers can validly challenge the 5 year supply figures they can drive a coach and horses through a decision to refuse planning permission.

Developers challenge, developers win

Across the country developers have challenged and developers have won. And in the case of a 200 house estate in the Stroud area they won even when the planned development was outside a defined settlement boundary on a site considered by the local planning authority to be unsuitable. They also won in Wellingborough on an appeal for 65 dwellings. Had the council been able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply the appeal would have been dismissed, the Inspector said. They won in Exminster when an Inspector decided that there was no five year housing land supply and that there had been a consistent under delivery of housing allocations. Deliverability is key and another important issue.

Why is all this important?

It's important because the the Borough Council argues that it has a five year supply of housing land, and this has helped provide a comfortable backdrop to the other arguments about the pressures on local schools and health services, and the green wedge which helps local villages retain their individual identities.

But closer to home than Stroud, Wellingborough and Exminster there has been a challenge to the Borough Council figures, and one which can only make Groby residents feel rather uneasy. On 18 December the appeal decision was published in respect of an application to build 28 homes in Stanton under Bardon, and one of the central issues was the Five Year Housing Supply. The Planning Inspector and the Borough Council had different views regarding the Council's figures.

“In essence, the Planning Inspector did not support the method the council had used to produce its five year housing supply figures,” said a spokesperson for the Council. “Our figure was calculated using a recognised method and the council believes its figure is credible. However, the Inspector did not share this view. The Council is assessing the implications of this decision and awaiting the outcome of the Groby appeal.”

Deliverability also an issue

In addition to the method of calculation there was a challenge regarding whether or not the Council had delivered adequate housing in earlier years. It was argued it had not and that the buffer of 5% in it's figures should be increased to 20%, but the Borough argued that any shortfall was because developers hadn't built the houses for which permission had been granted.

“The Council has suggested that the under delivery is not due to the lack of planning permissions but is due to the lack of implementation of these permissions,” the Inspector commented. One of the schemes cited as not delivered is the 20 dwellings site at Markfield Road, next to Groby church which was started but not completed. “The Framework does not give this as a justification for persistent under delivery,” he added. “Therefore, based on the evidence provided for the previous 6 years, I conclude that a persistent under delivery of housing has been demonstrated and a 20% buffer should be applied.” He also remarked that “having found that there is not an identified supply of deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing, the relevant policies are not to be considered up-to-date....... as such, the proposal should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.”

The Borough view is that “once a development has been approved it becomes a committed development and can then be included as part of the 5 year housing supply. If however the application expires without being implemented it falls out of the calculation. The Inspector also seems to be taking the view that some extant (i.e. existing) consents may not be delivered and therefore shouldn’t be included. This is an element of his report which gives us some concern because if a development has commenced then even if it is mothballed for a number of years or sold on it is still capable of implementation.”

If they win the debate moves on

It is perhaps the issue of the Five Year housing Supply which gives those who have been involved in resisting the development the most concern. If Bloors are successful then the debate will move to another stage as the issues concerning local infrastructure come to the fore. Not least will be concerns about the pressure on local primary schools. A County Council spokesperson has confirmed that “if we can't provide places at Lady Jane Grey, we'd look at providing places at one of the other two schools.” There is little in that statement to comfort those who live on roads used by parent's cars to take children to Martinshaw Primary School.

It's reported that according to the two lawyers representing the Borough and Parish Councils, Tim Leader ( HBBC) and Simon Stanion (Groby PC), it’s too close to call. Whatever the outcome the local community has done it's best to promote the case against. Simon Stanion has commented “at the end of the day I think we (the Groby Parish Council team) can put our hands on our hearts and say that we did everything we could to get our case over to the Inspector.”

If Bloors succeed the Inspector will spell out his reasons. The Government push for development to try and kick start the economy combined with the housing supply figures may well sway the inspector to allow the appeal. It may be that a steamroller followed by a coach and horses is an irresistible force.

November 2012

Bloors traffic bombshell for Forest Rise?

Groby residents may believe that the village is full and there is no more capacity in local healthcare and educational facilities. And members of Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council agreed when they added an additional reason to this effect when they turned down Bloors planning application in respect of land next to Groby cemetery. With the appeal against the decision imminent the Council has had to consider whether it has all the information it needs to defend this position and at the 23 October planning committee members agreed to withdraw this reason for refusal from the appeal if the supporting evidence could not be produced by the time of the appeal

Residents will hope that officers are trying to gather together the evidence as a matter of urgency as the appeal hearing will begin on December 11th. Locally there is speculation that two of the local primary schools simply do not have enough land to grow and may be incapable of the necessary expansion to accommodate the extra pupils that nearly 100 new homes would generate. But some are concerned that the third, Martinshaw Primary, may not be in the same position.

Traffic problems

Expansion at Martinshaw would bring other problems, however. Local residents have long complained about the traffic congestion on Forest Rise and Forest View, effectively a cul de sac feeding not only local homes but also the school, the Scout hut, the community centre and the Quarry recreation park. They were outspoken when it was suggested that a new community facility should be built on the park and voiced their concerns about traffic volumes at an open meeting earlier this year. The community facility scheme was dropped in favour of improvements to the existing facilities and a revised plan for the provision of a multi use games area, changing facilities and car park improvements, all of which it is felt would not lead to a significant increase in traffic volumes.

Do you have information?

With such a large site at Martinshaw Primary the question sometimes asked is why two new schools were built in the village rather than extending Martinshaw. Although no definitive answer has been found the belief is that the increasing use of cars by parents to take their children to school made expansion difficult because of the problems of vehicular access. Within the community there may well be information which will support this, and the Parish Council is asking anyone who may have some background knowledge to contact them as soon as possible.

Congestion

Close to 100 new homes next to the cemetery would generate a significant increase in the number of children passing through the educational system in Groby. Parents are unlikely to want their children to walk unaccompanied along the old railway footpath or to make their way on a congested Ratby Road as other parents drop children off at Brookvale or the Community College. The effect could be extra congestion near the Community College as vehicles turn right into Ratby Road from the new estate and gridlock on Forest rise on the approach to Martinshaw School.

None of this may happen. The inspector may reject the appeal as these are not the only grounds on which the decision will be fought. But residents in the Forest Rise area will be concerned that this time Bloors may get the green light and will anxiously await the appeal outcome.

Attending the Appeal hearing

“Any resident of interested party can attend the appeal,” said a spokesperson for the Parish Council.  “In addition  anyone is allowed to speak as long as they attend first thing in the day and inform the clerk/Inspector that they want to speak and what they want to speak about.”    

The Planning website says that the Inspector will open the hearing by explaining what the appeal is about.   He or she will then go through some routine points, including asking who wants to speak.  The Inspector leads the discussion.  Hearings give everyone concerned the chance to give their views.  Although hearings are informal, they must be orderly so that everyone involved can have a fair hearing.  

September 2012

The Bloors amendment - why did 5 councillors oppose it?

Most electors don't have much contact on a day to day basis with those they send to the Parish, Borough or County Councils. They mark their cross on the ballot paper and let members get on with the task of representing them. They probably underestimate the time or commitment that members put in and rarely turn up at the regular meetings of the councils to follow what is happening. They assume that although members are not generally mandated to vote in a particular way on any topic they will carefully consider the issues and vote accordingly. There must be many influences on the way they vote. They may not agree in principle with the proposition or they may consider it premature,ill timed or inadequate. They may feel that they would need further time to consider the implications but that is not an option. Or there may occasionally be political considerations.

They will have a reason for deciding which way they vote. From the point of view of the elector it is not unreasonable if, from time to time, they ask why they voted in a particular way, to understand what they were thinking. So it comes as a surprise when not one but five borough councillors decide that they do not wish to comment on the way they voted on an issue which doesn't even affect the parish they represent.

Reasons for refusal 

In July The Borough Council considered the latest application by Bloors to develop land next to Groby cemetery. The planning officers recommended that the application be refused. Local councillors from Groby and Ratby felt that additional reasons for refusal should be added, and when an amendment to this affect was put to the vote 5 members opposed it. Nevertheless the amendment was carried and it was resolved that the application be refused for the reasons contained in the officer’s report and the following additional reasons:

“In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed development is contrary to the objectives of Policy 8 of the Core Strategy which seeks to support the local services and the improvement of GP facilities in Ratby and Groby to provide for the increase in population, and contrary to Paragraph 72 of the NPPF which seeks to ensure that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities.

Paragraph 72 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools. The existing schools and health care facilities have insufficient capacity to expand and the local planning authority is not satisfied that the developer contributions can mitigate against the impact of development. Therefore the proposals are not considered to be sustainable in accordance with the principles of the NPPF and are considered contrary to Policy 8 of the Core Strategy and Paragraph 72 of the NPPF.”

Not from Groby or Ratby 

The 5 Councillors who felt they could not support the amendment do not represent Groby or Ratby and were elected by the people of Barwell. Burbage and Hinckley. Their opposition may seem puzzling to local people but they are entitled to their view and vote accordingly. In order to help residents affected by the application understand their decision they have all been asked if they could explain why they took the position they did. One has courteously offered a 'no comment' but four have not responded as the Spotlight goes to the printers so they may all be on holiday. For the time being we have to wait to find out why an amendment which our the representatives in Groby and Ratby consider so important is unworthy of support by those from another part of the Borough. Until there is a response residents can only speculate.

August 2012

Bloors lodge appeal after housing application refused

Although only 247 residents objected to the most recent plan to develop the land next to Groby cemetery this is unlikely to reflect the true level of opposition within the two villages affected. There will be widespread relief in Groby and in Ratby that on July 24th Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council decided not to approve the application from Bloors to build 91 homes on the site. This is not the end of the story. The company has invested heavily in it's plans to develop the site and has already appealed against the decision.

This application was unexpected following the rejection of their last plan for 133 homes by the Planning Inspector. Residents believed that because of the “2 year rule” there could be no further application submitted until January 2013 at the earliest. Bloors contended that it was legitimate for them to submit a new application before two years have elapsed, arguing that the power to decline to determine a revised planning application is available to local planning authorities where the revised application is the same or similar to the refused or dismissed applications and the local planning authority consider that there has been no significant change in the relevant considerations since the relevant refusal or dismissal. The legal advice given to the Borough Council was that Bloors should be allowed the chance to submit another application so that the Council could decide whether it was substantially different from the one that was rejected.

Report recommended refusal

The report of the planning officer to members of the Council runs to 14 pages of detailed consideration of all the issues, much too detailed to report fully. It can be read online, however, at http://moderngov.hinckley-bosworth.gov.uk/documents/s1570/Applications.pdf. The planning Office decided there were clear differences in this scheme when compared to the appeal scheme and so they had to consider it. But although some of the issues from the appeal had been addressed by the new proposals it was felt that there were other reasons for refusing the application at this time. The main issue was described as 'prematurity', which to the layman might be called 'jumping the gun'. It seems to mean that the application has been made before the Council has completed the process of allocating sites suitable for development throughout the borough. In addition if the land were to be developed it could compromise the review of the boundary of the Green Wedge.

Although rejecting the appeal against the earlier application the Inspector considered the need to ensure a 5 year supply of housing land. He considered that the delivery of housing on this site would make an appreciable contribution towards the shortfall in the Council’s overall five year supply of 90 sites. Although this could be a reason for supporting development he thought it was outweighed by the other considerations, and this was something the Council had to consider. Luckily the Borough Council now has a five year supply of housing land and as such it believes that this removes the need to bring sites forward ahead of the plan making process.

Why engage expensive advisers? 

With the Borough Council officers taking such a clear stand on the application some may wonder why the Parish Council has set aside thousands of pounds of residents money to engage expensive legal experts to represent Groby. The answer lies in the nature of the system. The building industry has to deliver houses for it's customers, profits for it's owners and employment and security for it's workers and families. The stakes are high and as a result so are the sums of money that the companies are prepared to spend in preparing planning applications and detailed and persuasive arguments why they should be approved. Parish Councils and local residents are generally incapable of responding to professionally prepared technical applications without the help of their own advisers who have the same skills. These advisers help create a level playing field, but expert help is always expensive, even when the costs are shared with neighbouring parishes.

Leicester based Marrons describes itself as "a specialist practice which focuses on planning and environmental, public law and property." Simon Stanion, a partner in the firm, submitted on behalf of the Parish Council a detailed 12 page letter outlining the reasons why the application should be rejected, and this may have played an important role. Simon was acknowledged in the 2012 Planning magazine guide to Planning Lawyers 2012-13 as being one of the top 20 planning solicitors in the country. As in all things, you get what you pay for, and such expertise doesn't come cheap. Even Marrons can't guarantee ultimate success, but at least residents will know that the community did all they could.

July 2012

Refusal recommended

When the latest planning application from Bloors is considered by the Planning Committee at Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council on July 24th members will be recommended by officers to refuse it.  Villagers are optimistic that Councillors will accept the advice.  Around 300 objections were received by the Council from Groby and Ratby residents.

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed development is outside of the settlement boundary and would result in a loss of Green Wedge. The application is considered premature to the plan making process in that it would result in a site allocation and amendment to the Green Wedge Boundary ahead of full consideration and consultation on these issues. 

Read the Planning officer's report and recommendation to members

June 2012

Village Society objects  to Bloors planning application 

Groby Village Society has lost no time in joining the Parish Council in voicing it's opposition to the latest planning application by Bloors for nearly 100 homes on land next to Groby cemetery. Although the Village Society's objection is one of the first the Parish Council believes it needs to be joined by many more from local residents to ensure the proposed development is stopped.

In a letter to Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council the Village Society says it finds the application totally unacceptable, creating numerous problems including congestion and pressure on services whilst offering no advantages. “It is time to say no to any more large scale developments before every scrap of green land is lost and the joining of Leicester, Glenfield, Groby and Ratby is complete with no open land left,” argues the Society.

Parish Council leaflet for every home

The Council has published a leaflet outlining the threat posed by the proposals to the village and in particular the green wedge that separates Groby from neighbouring villages. If you have not received a copy you should contact the Parish Council or read it online at www.groby.com.   The Council believes that the proposals should be rejected on the following grounds -

• Encroachment into Groby's Green Wedge 

• Dragging the Ratby settlement boundary right up to the Groby Parish boundary

• Home-buyers on this site would be Ratby residents and ratepayers but dependent on the already overstretched Groby facilities and amenities.

• Lack of capacity in local schools, particularly primary schools, including large waiting lists 

• Lack of available capacity of doctors and dentists 

• Unsustainable increase in commuter traffic flow 

• Creating unsafe pedestrian environment for Brookvale/Groby College students Residents are asked to write or email objections to Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council or deliver letters of objection to the Ratby or Groby Parish Council offices or the nearest Parish Councillor as soon as possible. It also asks for a copy if possible. If you have any questions you are advised to contact your Parish Council office or local councillors. The Borough Council website planning page relating to this application indicates that the public consultation period has ended but residents are being advised that officially and legally objections are allowed up to the actual time of the meeting hearing the application. But if you don't want another housing development in Groby the advice is to act now rather than delay.

• Comments should be written personally and refer to planning application 12/00250/FUL and be for the attention of Anne Lynch at the Planning Department, Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council, Argents Mead, Hinckley, Leicestershire LE10 1BZ or email anne.lynch@hinckley-bosworth.gov.uk referring to planning application 12/00250/FUL. More information on how to write a valid and effective objection is contained in is available in the Parish Council leaflet.

Green Wedge under threat? 

In preparing their latest application Bloors have attempted to address the issues raised by the last application which was rejected by the Planning Inspector. Perhaps the most contentious issue is that of the Green Wedge, and this may well be central to the case put forward for and against this planning application. Pegasus Landscape Design was instructed by Bloor Homes Ltd to carry out an appraisal of the likely effect of the proposed residential development on the function of the surrounding Rothley Brook Meadows Green Wedge and their assessment runs to 36 pages plus plans and photographs.

Their conclusion is that their appraisal has “demonstrated through the detailed consideration of the Green Wedge that the development of the Site would have a limited, if any, effect on the perceived separation of settlements and would not result in their physical coalescence; the selection of the Site has been guided by the need for future development and the physical character and composition of the settlement and surrounding Green Wedge land; it would not affect the function of a Green Lung or compromise the existing or future expansion of the green infrastructure network; and it would not physically restrict or compromise the use of the Green Wedge as a recreation resource.” This conclusion is likely to be hotly contested. 

Earlier stories about the planning applications

Bloors new plan for 90 homes in Groby

March 2012 When planning permission was refused for the development of land next to Groby cemetery following the dismissal at appeal of a 133 dwelling scheme in February 2011 residents believed because of the “2 year rule” there could be no further application submitted until January 2013 at the earliest. 

 But Bloors Homes has confirmed that the company is preparing a revised planning application for a residential development. They say it has been designed to address the constraints associated with the site identified through the appeal process and to meet the Borough Council’s policy requirements for affordable housing.

“The revised scheme will provide approximately 90 dwellings and the development will avoid those parts of the site subject to flood risk and will allow for unobstructed easements to the watercourses along the northern and eastern boundaries. It will also incorporate a Sustainable Urban Drainage system. The revised planning application will be submitted shortly and representations can be made to the Borough Council in the usual way once the application has been submitted,” said a spokesman for the company.

So what about the 2 year rule?

Bloors believes that it is legitimate for them to submit a new application before two years have elapsed, arguing that the power to decline to determine a revised planning application is available to local planning authorities where the revised application is the same or similar to the refused or dismissed applications and the local planning authority consider that there has been no significant change in the relevant considerations since the relevant refusal or dismissal.

It seems that the legislation relating to this issue says that “an application for planning permission is similar if the local planning authority think that the development and the land to which the applications relate are the same or substantially the same.” Bloors argues that the revised scheme is not the same or substantially the same as that dismissed at appeal and that the only way the Borough can determine whether or not this is the case is by allowing a revised application to be submitted. They also believe that the power to refuse an application within the two year period  should only be used in narrow circumstances where an applicant is deliberately trying to exert pressure on the local planning authority by submitting repeat applications and not where an applicant is making a genuine attempt to take account of objections to a proposal.

The Borough Council has taken legal advice to try and clarify the situation. “The two year rule is intended to stop an applicant from submitting the same application within a two year period,” explained a spokesman for the Council. “According to our legal advice, we have to allow Bloors the chance to submit another application to see if it is substantially different from the one that was rejected.”

So what's different about this scheme?  

• Bloors points out that the revised scheme proposes a significantly reduced number of dwellings (from 133 to approximately 90, the final number being subject to detailed design);

• meets the requirements for affordable housing;

• will avoid those areas of the site subject to flood risk and as such will not require a flood compensation scheme;

• will incorporate a Sustainable Urban Drainage system; and

• will allow for unobstructed easements to the watercourses along the northern and eastern boundaries.

Once the Borough Council has the planning application it can decide whether it agrees that it is substantially different from the one that was rejected. If it is then, as Bloors points out, representations can be made to the Borough Council in the usual way. The objections to the previous application will not be taken into consideration and if residents still have concerns they will have to engage with the planning process once again and send in comments on the new application. In the meantime the Parish Council has decided that if it needs representation in connection with any application for the site it will re-engage Marrons, a specialist practice based in Leicester which focuses on planning and environmental, public law and property.

Febuary 2011

Bloors planning application refused