The proposed development, by virtue of the means of access breaking the connectivity between foraging areas in and around the brook and typical commuting routes to the known badger setts within the vicinity, would result in harm being caused to the biodiversity of the site, and would therefore harm identified interests of nature conservation without the requisite and adequate mitigation measures being in place to overcome the harm. The proposed mitigation measures identified in the applicants ecological report are vague and the proposals to consider closing some setts temporarily whilst construction of houses at the site takes place is unnacceptable, and unneccesary. The proposal would thereby be contrary to advice given in PPS 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.

The submitted Flood Risk Assessment does not comply with the requirements set out in PPS 25 Annexe E, paragraph E3, requiring a suitable basis for assessment of the flood risks associated with the proposal. In addition, the hydrological analysis is unacceptable as the catchment for the Fishpool Brook is larger than identified within the submitted documentation. Further additional work is therefore required to ensure that the development is not likely to lead to flood risk in the interests of the water environment and to ensure that existing nearby residential development is not harmed.

The proposal provides insufficient archaeological information to properly assess the effects of the development on the potential archaeological records deposited underneath the ground. This information should be submitted to the local planning authority before any reasonable decision can be made on the application as the results of the investigations may result in either preventing development altogether, or requiring a significant alteration of the details of the scheme due to the archaeological remains being potentially adversely affected. The requirement to provide this information is stated within PPG 16- Archaeology and Planning.

The proposed development fails to ensure a sufficiently high quality design, or provide sufficient assurances and evidence with regard to the requirement to show sustainability of the built design, provide adequate safeguard with regard to ease of access to open spaces on the outskirts of the development from within the site, or adequately show that the appearance of the proposal shows variety of designs and a sufficiently individualised response to create a distinctive development that will have a sense of place. Without elevations and sections, it is unclear how well parking could be integrated well into the street scene. There is also no commitment shown to incorporate Secure by Design principles or to Home Office 'Safer Place' Guidance. The proposal, due to its outline form, and lack of evidence to demonstrate the delivery of a high quality and sustainable development, scores poorly when assessed against the criteria contained in the Building for Life assessment. The proposal is thereby unnacceptable and contrary to policy EV/1, and EV/17 of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan 2004, Policy 2 of the East Midlands Regional Plan 2009, PPS 1 Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS 3 Housing, Leading in Design SPD 2006, and CABE Document Building for Life 2008.

Policy ST/3 of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan indicates that developers should contribute to the cost of infrastructure and facilities required to support development. This is in accordance with advice contained in Circular 05/2005. Contributions to educational requirements, library facilities, waste provision, health facilities, youth/adult and childrens's play provision, community facilities and public art are required, along with the provision of affordable housing at a rate of 30% of the total number of dwellings, which would need to be secured by a Section 106 Agreement. At the time of the decision of the application, no completed agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act is in existence. The proposal is therefore lacking in the provision of these facilities that would have been secured through the contributions. The development could not be controlled by conditions to deliver these community facilities and, therefore, in the absence of a mechanism that secures appropriate contributions to mitigate the harm to the provision of community facilities, the development would place unacceptable burdens on the provision of public facilities in these areas and would not, therefore, fulfil the requirements of the Policies ST/3, H/5, RT/3 and RT/4 of the Local Plan.

The proposed roundabout would result in the unacceptable loss of public open space on the north side of the existing public highway on Melton Road. Whilst this has been recognised as a probable drafting error, and is outside the boundary of the application site and the public highway, nevertheless this would be detrimental to the visual appearance of the site and would detract from this lands purpose to provide public open space in the interests of the wider community.

Inadequate technical details have been provided of the proposed means of access into the site from Melton Road to satisfy the highway authority that the means of access can be satisfactorily achieved to their standards and has adequate geometric capacity. The forward visibility splay of 59m is not considered appropriate. The calcuation for this figure should be from Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. It is therefore unclear as to whether or not the roundabout could be accomodated at the site without a significantly detrimental impact upon the appearance of the site, or whether or not any potential harmful effects of changes in levels can be ameliorated in its design to mitigate any potential significant adverse impact on the environment. The proposal as submitted would therefore be contrary to the aims of policy TR/6 of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan 2004.

The proposed development would result in a material increase in vehicular traffic on the local highway network in Barrow upon Soar, particularly the existing signal controlled bridge on Barrow Road and the roundabout junction of Barrow Road/South Street/High Street. The submitted Transport Assessment identifies the potential for additional traffic using the Barrow Road/High Street/South Street roundabout and going over the bridge in a westerly direction at peak early morning hours, resulting in likely additional delays for vehicle users. Given the limited scope for improving the flow over the bridge due to structural and listed building issues, the reduction in background traffic could be sought through significant reductions in vehicle movements from the development through modal shift to other forms of transport. Whilst the site is generally considered to be a sustainable location on the edge of an existing Service Centre, the proposed package of measures in the submitted Framework Travel Plan is vague and lacking in robustness and enforcability. Some of the proposed measures such as bus travel passes would be likely to have a short term impact only. The lack of a definitive proposal for amendment of the Kinch Bus service number 2 through the site, would mean that parts of the site would be more than 400m from a bus stop, and therefore less than ideal and not likely to result in modal shift. The current lack of definitive proposals to ensure a fully accessible route across the railway line would also limit access to the bus route, and industrial units on Sileby Road, thereby increasing the likelihood of cars being used to travel south, even for relatively short distances. Also, insufficient information has been provided to indicate whether or not there is sufficient capacity within the rail network to accommodate the additional demand for those services from potential occupiers of the development. On the basis of the proposed information, it is therefore considere

The existing junction of Grove Lane with South Street/Sileby Road is lacking in adequate visibility to the left out of Grove Lane. The proposal if approved would lead to increased dangers for road users and not be in the interests of highway safety. Accordingly, the development is contrary to Policy TR/6 of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan 2004.