Inspector allows 180 Leicestershire homes after ‘pragmatic solution’ is found to highway capacity problem

Developer Gladman Developments applied to Charnwood Borough Council in August 2013 for outline consent to build 215 homes in the town of Shepshed, near Loughborough in Leicestershire. The extent of the proposal was reduced to 180 homes in January 2014. When the Council failed to determine the application within the time limit prescribed by law, the developer appealed to the secretary of state for communities and local government.

In a decision letter dated 23 January (8-page / 104 KB PDF), planning inspector P W Clark allowed the appeal and granted outline permission for the development. The inspector concluded that "the effects of the proposal on the capacity of the highway network would be acceptable", despite no provision being made in a planning obligation towards dealing with the contribution of the development towards overloading at junction 23 of the M1 motorway.

The inspector was satisfied that financial contributions offered "towards increasing the capacity of two junctions on the A512 Ashby Road and towards improving the safety of a third" were proportionate to the impact of the proposal on these junctions.

In relation to the M1 junction, the inspector accepted that the impact of several developments around Shepshed, including the appeal development, "would be insignificant in comparison with the effects on it which would be caused by two other anticipated developments": a sustainable urban extension and a science park extension, both proposed to the west of Loughborough.

The inspector noted that Leicestershire County Council had proposed to allow the A512 improvements to proceed first, funded by the Shepshed developments" and the M1 junction improvements to "follow later, largely funded by the two other anticipated developments".

"Although this represents somewhat rough justice, I am satisfied that it is a pragmatic solution to the circumstances," Clark said.

The inspector was also satisfied that provisions of the proposed planning agreement providing for a financial contribution to policing costs were acceptable, provided that references to training, which "would not fall within a reasonable definition of capital expenditure", were removed.