Application 19/00862/OUT Sports & Extra care Great Glen


Neil O’Brien MP, DCllr James Hallam, CCClr Kevin Feltham and DCllr Rani Mahal at the entrance to Chestnut Drive after discussing the proposals. All have submitted objections.

19/00862/OUT | Hybrid planning application comprising: 1) Full: Sports facilities and associated maintenance building and pavilion/changing facilities building together with landscaping, additional car parking and access to the adjacent Leicester Grammar School. 2) Outline (with all matters reserved except access): Extra care facility including a 60 bed care building (Use Class C2), 34 associated bungalows (Use Class C2), and associated access onto Chestnut Drive, landscaping, drainage and car parking areas | Land Adjacent Leicester Grammar School London Road Great Glen Leicestershire

This is the objection to these plans that I submitted to HDC planning on Friday 2 August 2019.

Generally I support opportunities for increased sport and so this chance to obtain an athletics track was Initially attractive, but the access off Chestnut Drive, potential for over-spill visitor cars being parked on Chestnut Drive, and the unsustainability of the proposed extra care home outweigh the sporting benefits.

Highways matters

Extra Care Facility & Sports Facilities

I am extremely concerned that despite a request by the Highways Authority on 25th June, no additional information has yet been published regarding the ongoing trip generation and travel planning for the proposed Sports facilities. The submitted assessment of the sports hub’s highway impact is not supported by any data nor any detailed analysis. The applicant has therefore not demonstrated that the sports hub will not generate a severe impact on the capacity of the surrounding county network.

The proposed site access off Chestnut Drive crosses a parcel of third-party land that is not in the ownership of the applicant, so cannot be supported without evidence that permission has been granted.

The applicant has not factored in any committed developments into the junction capacity analysis.

Due consideration should also be given to the provision of an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing at the site access to reflect the expected desire line of pedestrians accessing the site from the north along the existing footway provision on the western side of Chestnut Drive.

Objections have been raised about the probability of cars, visiting the sports facilities or extra care facility, being parked inappropriately on Chestnut Drive. This would present very real problems for existing residents of the area and there is nothing in the proposals to prevent this happening; a condition to provide ‘no parking’ regulations on both sides of Chestnut Drive from London Road for 150m would help prevent any problems arising from over-spill parking. The proposed car parking provision in all options appears to be far too little when any heavily attended sports activities are taking place.

Flood Authority comments

Insufficient evidence has been provided especially regarding the drainage runoffs which are not in ownership of applicant.

Other matters

I have very grave concerns about whether there is a need for this scale of extra care facility at this location, given its lack of access to local amenities such as shops, library and doctors’ surgery and because of the closure of a smaller care facility at Brookfields due to a lack of demand.  No evidence has been provided of the demand for such a facility in this area when adult social care policies now support elderly people living in their own home with care provided in their own premises or for support by family members.

Scale – a three storey facility at this location is too high and would be visible from many miles away.

Light pollution – any proposals for lighting of the athletics facilities must ensure minimal light pollution.

Noise – I have concerns about crowd noise from the sport facilities imposing on the neighbourhood.

Conclusions
I therefore object to this whole outline proposal.