Strategic planning consultations

You can view all available strategic planning consultations. To make a comment on a current consultation you must sign in to your account.

Representations on New Local Plan Options - Q2. Do you have any comments on the Draft Objectives, or any additional objectives to suggest?

Representation ID: 5085

COMMENT Leicester City Council (Mr Fabian D'Costa)

Summary:

There will be certain car users who will always want to use a car no matter how good the bus service and other sustainable modes of transport are. A further measure to reduce emissions from transport is to encourage the uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles such as electric vehicles and to provide the necessary infrastructure to facilitate this.

Representation ID: 5042

COMMENT IDI Gazeley represented by Now Planning (Ms Nora Galley)

Summary:

OCP offers no scenario for employment which aims to reduce the levels of out-commuting, despite Strategic Objective 2. To achieve this, given levels of out-commuting, would clearly require a very substantial increase in workplace jobs, including workplace jobs that would appeal to its resident workforce.

Representation ID: 5018

COMMENT Mr John L. Marlow

Summary:

Objective 1: the housing objective is too vague. There needs to be a firm determination to achieve set and acceptable housing standards.
Objective 4: The history and present situation of Broughton Astley illustrate how shallow such objectives are, and Broughton Astley is supposed to be a Rural Centre.
Objective 7: It is easy to talk of 'safeguarding and enhancing the character and built heritage' while continuing to freely grant permissions for development which result in medieval village streets covered in vehicles.
Objective 10: Allowing development in small villages while failing to provide adequate bus services defeats this aim.

Representation ID: 4964

COMMENT Mr John Martin

Summary:

- Employment. Businesses will only be attracted to Harborough and job opportunities created when communications and transport of all sorts are in place. Communication via the internet is currently poor in many localities, yet this is not mentioned within the Employment paragraph.
- Natural Environment. It is pleasing to see that development objectives are being set to protect nature and prevent isolated and uncontrolled building.
- Transport. The use of public transport should be encouraged and unlike in recent major development applications not to just encourage people to walk to shops, the town centre, the train station etc as this is simply ineffective.

Representation ID: 4895

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Economic Growth comments:
There is the need to provide for mixed sustainable communities to help enable community capacity to be created so that communities are able to support themselves and vulnerable individuals and families within them. This concept is embraced within the Leicestershire Communities Strategy (2014). It is suggested this ambition is incorporated in the objectives for the new Local Plan.

Representation ID: 4894

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Archaeology Comments:
Built Environment. No reference to wider cultural heritage and historic environment. Notable omission being the lack of recognition of Harborough's rich and well preserved rural heritage and historic landscape, including substantial and well preserved areas of ridge and furrow (e.g. Historic England's 'Priority Townships': Gumley, Hallaton, Hungarton, Mowsley, Owston & Newbold, Saddington, and Thorpe Langton.

Representation ID: 4880

SUPPORT Grace Homes represented by Pegasus (Ms Joanne Althorpe)

Summary:

Grace Homes generally support the draft objectives as they are positively prepared. 1, 3 and 9 in particular are supported in relation to housing development. Grace Homes has a number fo land interests within selected rural villages which would positively contribute towards achieving the draft objectives.

Representation ID: 4855

COMMENT Mr Michael Lenihan

Summary:

The objectives are fine other than :
'Promote sustainable economic growth across the district of existing businesses' the word 'existing' must be removed. What about new businesses?? They are the future life blood of the economy.

Representation ID: 4853

COMMENT Tarmac Ltd represented by Ms Jenna Conway

Summary:

We believe it is important at District-level to identify mineral safeguarding areas to ensure that mineral resources are not unnecessarily sterilised by non-minerals development. We consider that minerals safeguarding areas should be included within future drafts of the Local Plan for parcels of land which have been allocated for sand and gravel working within the latest draft of the Leicestershire MWLP.

Representation ID: 4850

COMMENT Tarmac Ltd represented by Ms Jenna Conway

Summary:

We consider that the importance / role of the minerals industry should be given greater prominence throughout the Local Plan. Both the Husbands Bosworth and Shawell sites should be considered greatly significant, as they are two of only five active sand and gravel quarries sites within the County. Therefore, there is a reliance on Harborough to produce a significant proportion of the sand and gravel required over the period of the Leicestershire MWLP to 2031.
We support objective 2 (Employment)and objective 3 (Location of Development).

Representation ID: 4836

OBJECT Mr Stephen Lucas

Summary:

Objective 1: we find fault with the inclusion of the word 'appropriate' because the aim with this objective surely is just to meet all the various housing needs full stop: the plan will fail if it does not.

Representation ID: 4815

COMMENT Millers Homes represented by Pegasus (Ms Joanne Althorpe)

Summary:

The draft objective to locate new development in sustainable locations that respect environmental capacity is supported, however it is not accepted that in relation to Broughton Astley, the proposed distribution options reflect this draft objective.

Representation ID: 4762

SUPPORT Natural England (Mr Sean Mahoney)

Summary:

We support the draft objectives to help deliver the draft vision. We particularly welcome objectives 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13, relating to the natural environment, the built environment, town & village centres, design, transport, flood risk, environmental impact and promoting tourism and culture including access to the countryside.

Representation ID: 4663

SUPPORT Cllr Rosita Page

Summary:

The objectives are fine other than :
'Promote sustainable economic growth across the district of existing businesses':
the word 'existing' on page 13 should be removed.
The word 'existing 'will lead /give an opening in future policy for existing companies like Magna Park to expand without justification but most important all business in the district should be supported.

Representation ID: 4561

OBJECT The Co-operative Group (Mr Matthew Stafford)

Summary:

Object to objective 1), 3), 4) and 5) as there is a need for the policy criteria not to be strictly applied to expect development to mutually achieve all three objectives.
Objective 6: this needs to be caveated at this stage with a clear understanding and intention for prospective policies for protecting the natural environment to be fully informed by a necessary up to date review of evidence in relatio to Green Wedge and landscape designations. Green Wedge Review - Draft Technical Update not an independent and credible review.
Growing reliance on homeworking and home delivery of goods and services, via the internet, and sustainability of settlements closer to urban areas should be recognised in Objective 10.

Representation ID: 4455

COMMENT Thurnby And Bushby Society (Mr Jeffrey Rosenthal)

Summary:

Re Objective 3. We support the use of brownfield sites. Development must be located to minimise the use of cars; this means good public transport links must exist.

Representation ID: 4276

COMMENT Sport England (Steven Beard)

Summary:

Objective 4 infrastructure is about delivery.
There does not appear to be an objective which protects and enhances existing or provides for new sports facilities and playing fields (unless the section would be covered under objective 4).

Representation ID: 4265

SUPPORT Cliffe Investments Ltd represented by Pegasus Planning Group (Miss Sophie Trouth)

Summary:

Cliffe Investments are generally supportive of the draft objectives as they are positively prepared. Draft objectives 1 and 3 in particular are supported, as Cliffe Investments have land interests at Vicarage Drive, Foxton (SHLAA ref A/FX/HSG/02). The development of this site for housing would positively contribute towards the achievement of the draft objectives.

Representation ID: 4223

COMMENT Gladman Developments Ltd (Ms Nicole Penfold)

Summary:

Objective 1 should be strengthened to specifically state that local housing needs will be met in full.
Objective 2 should add a drive to attain more employment self-containment.
The prioritisation of brownfield land is contrary to NPPF paras 17 and 111, which only encourage, and not prioritise it. This statement should be deleted.
Objective 6 should recognise the presumption in favour of development.

Representation ID: 4100

COMMENT DLA Town Planning (David Lane)

Summary:

We support reference in the objectives to issues of environmental capacity in relation to the location of new development. The Council's Landscape Capacity Study undertaken in 2009 remains an important part of the evidence base and is critical in selecting appropriate development sites going forward. Through this process the Overstone Park site as a whole was concluded to have medium/low sensitivity to accommodate development i.e. the least sensitive landscape category possible.

Representation ID: 4003

COMMENT Redrow Homes (South Midlands) (Mr Russell Crow)

Summary:

We have no comments on the Draft Objectives which are considered to form a sound basis to guide development up to 2031.

Representation ID: 3844

COMMENT Anglian Water Services Ltd (Mr Stewart Patience)

Summary:

Infrastructure: It would be helpful if this objective including reference to the need to ensure there is sufficient foul sewerage network capacity.

Flood Risk: Anglian Water welcomes the reference made to requiring the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDs) in new developments.

It would be helpful to have a specific Local Plan policy or policies which require applicants to:
* demonstrate that there is capacity or capacity can be made available within the foul sewerage network to accommodate the proposed development and
* use of SuDs is required unless it can be demonstrated by applicant that this is not feasible.

Representation ID: 3792

COMMENT Ullesthorpe Parish Council (Mrs Katherine Clarke)

Summary:

The objectives are fine other than :
'Promote sustainable economic growth across the district of existing businesses'
To remove the word'existing' must be removed.
The word 'existing 'will lead /give an opening in future policy for existing companies like Magna Park to expand without justification.

Representation ID: 3760

COMMENT Miss Ruth Thompson

Summary:

remove the word existing in relation to growth for existing businesses as this is leading

Representation ID: 3716

COMMENT Miss Ruth Thompson

Summary:

Not mislead by using the word existing as it makes it sound alright for large organisations such as magna park to expand beyond any justification.

Representation ID: 3646

COMMENT Mr Simon Smith

Summary:

the objectives are fine other than
promote sustainable economic growth across the district for existing business'

the word existing should be removed.

The word existing will lead to/ existing companies being able to expand in the future without justification

Representation ID: 3577

COMMENT THURNBY AND BUSHBY Parish Council (Mrs S Bloy)

Summary:

The Draft Objectives are for the District as a whole. The Parish Council supports the re-usage of previously developed land and buildings (Figure 3, point 3.)

However, with regard to development within the PUA, in addition to the response above to Q1, there are issues of unsustainability in relation to issues such as public transport, schooling and GP provision.

Consideration should also be given to:
- the environmental impact of development such as air pollution from vehicles;
- the loss of agricultural land to development.

Representation ID: 3551

COMMENT THURNBY AND BUSHBY Parish Council (Mrs S Bloy)

Summary:

The Draft Objectives are for the District as a whole. The Parish Council supports the re-usage of previously developed land and buildings (Figure 3, pint 3.)

However, with regard to development within the PUA, in addition to the response above to Q1, there are issues of unsustainability in relation to issues such as public transport, schooling and GP provision.

Consideration should also be given to:
- the environmental impact of development such as air pollution from vehicles;
- the loss of agricultural land to development

Representation ID: 3530

SUPPORT Hungarton Neighbourhod Plan Committee (Mr James Patterson)

Summary:

WE are happy with these

Representation ID: 3494

SUPPORT Mrs Charlotte Johnston

Summary:

The objectives are good and balanced, I particularly support objective 6 Natural Environment; 7 Built Environment; 10 Transport - especially encouraging improvements in public transport in rural areas; 12 Environmental Impact and 14 Neighbourhood planning.

Representation ID: 3442

COMMENT Leicestershire County Council (Mr Richard Clark)

Summary:

Q2. Draft objectives. Built Environment. No reference to wider cultural heritage and historic environment. Notable omission being the lack of recognition of Harborough's rich and well preserved rural heritage and historic landscape, including substantial and well preserved areas of ridge and furrow (e.g. Historic England's 'Priority Townships': Gumley, Hallaton, Hungarton, Mowsley, Owston & Newbold, Saddington, and Thorpe Langton.

Representation ID: 3420

COMMENT Lutterworth East Landowners represented by Gary Stephens

Summary:

LEL welcomes the inclusion of Draft Objectives for the New Local Plan, and makes the following comment. Draft Objective 12 makes reference to 'reducing pollution and waste', however it is felt this objective would be better expanded and separated from the other elements of this objective which relate to climate change.

Representation ID: 3388

OBJECT Bloor Home Ltd represented by Define (Mr Mark Rose)

Summary:

Support the objective to provide housing to meet identified needs, but object to the priority to PDL, and the over emphasis on development providing infrastructure in the district, whilst ignoring the role of other bodies .

Representation ID: 3336

COMMENT The Theatres Trust (Mr Ross Anthony)

Summary:

The local plan must include policies to safeguard and protect existing cultural & community facilities.

Representation ID: 3265

COMMENT Davidsons Developments Limited represented by Bidwells (David Bainbridge)

Summary:

Our client is largely supportive of the Draft Objectives.

Representation ID: 3240

OBJECT Hft represented by Mr. Nigel Simkin

Summary:

We believe that Objective 1: Housing and Objective 3: Location of Development provide a proactive approach to addressing the increased housing needs pressure facing the District. Objective 3 supports the reuse of previously developed land in line with Paragraph 17 of the NPPF; however, we are concerned that the remainder of the Draft Local Plan fails to adequately support (or make reference to) this policy objective. The current drafting of both the countryside policies and the housing policies does not recognise the contribution that PDL should make to housing delivery in the District. Please refer to attached letter.

Representation ID: 3216

COMMENT MR Michael Wilcox

Summary:

(1) define affordable Also add "and which will be reserved for local people"
(3) define "sustainable land " and "environmental capacity" . Delete "where possible" (4) re-write "open recreation space" (7) define quality public realm" (9 define "sustainable" design and "sustainable" behaviour (14) Neighbourhood plans are not respected.

Representation ID: 3190

OBJECT mr jonjo Elliott

Summary:

Over filling schools does not add to a better quality of life for anyone. Where will the children go to school?

Representation ID: 3158

COMMENT Mrs Margaret Wright

Summary:

I am sceptical of whether the year-round effect of providing footpaths and cycle lanes on vehicular journeys will be significant or make any contribution to reducing traffic. HDC should not rely on this at all for sustainability of development.

Representation ID: 3132

OBJECT Melissa Gillbee

Summary:

Lutterworth SDA does not align with your transport and town centre objectives in particular. there are few opportunities for sustainable transport in Lutterworth and the SDA will create a split community.

Representation ID: 2934

COMMENT Mrs Patricia Horwell

Summary:

Once again utopian ideas, and it will have merit as all of the points can be applied to SVR's. Although development takes place other factors for example infrastructure, services et al are not applied, whereas if the development happens in town, these are factored in better, although once again woefully short of the required level. If SVR can have a notable impact on development then there should be equal growth and development - but it is evident that any decisions made against development could still be overturned by appeal therefore making the consultation null and void.

Representation ID: 2904

SUPPORT mr william naylor represented by mr william naylor

Summary:

I generally support the draft objectives set out at figure 3. They have been prepared in a positive way.There are a number of housing schemes which will add positively to selected rural villages and which can satisfy local demand as well as support local businesses. Draft Objective 1 is vital to deliver varied and contrasting housing schemes. Such developments in selected rural villages will have a positive benefit on the communities and businesses.

Representation ID: 2867

OBJECT The Co-operative Group (Mr Matthew Stafford)

Summary:

Please see representations submitted by the Co-operative Group (20151029 TCG Reps New Plan for Harborough Options Consultation Doc') by email on 29/10/15 to planningpolicy@harborough.gov.uk

Representation ID: 2803

COMMENT Edmund Hunt

Summary:

The suggested Lutterworth SDA in particulate contradicts some of these objectives, notably transport as Lutterworth would be reliant on road travel and does not have public transport infrastructure.
Lutterworth SDA also contradicts (8) town centres, as it could create a second community and there's no clear Lutterworth growth plan to date.
If committing to these objectives, commit to true sustainable urban expansion.
There should not be a specific emphasis on Neighbourhood planning as this may compromise communities where a neighbourhood plan is not appropriate.

Representation ID: 2683

SUPPORT Mr A Adcock

Summary:

CPC comments on the draft objectives as follows:-
9. Design
We would hope that the design of houses meets the objectives entirely. The current development in Lutterworth next to Bill Crane Way leaves a lot to be desired!
14. Neighbourhood Planning
As a sub-selected rural village Cotesbach does not consider itself able to justify a specific Neighbourhood Plan, but would like to it's position would not as a result be compromised!

Representation ID: 2595

COMMENT David Wilson Homes East Midlands (Helen Bareford)

Summary:

Objective 1: Housing is welcomed however it is considered that strategic housing requirements should also be acknowledged. The objective should follow on from Objective 1 of the adopted Core Strategy, with reference to the need to meet both strategic requirements and local housing needs.

Representation ID: 2501

SUPPORT Jo Brodrick

Summary:

Housing development needs to be mindful of the need for rented as well as home ownership options.
Piecemeal development should be avoided wherever possible to ensure that a holistic view of impacts and mitigation can be taken into account at planning stages including the needs for extensive developer contributions

Representation ID: 2406

COMMENT Sworders (on Behalf Of Mr And Mrs I P Crane) (Rachel Padfield)

Summary:

We welcome the first objective of the New Local Plan, to provide a range of market and affordable housing types, tenures and sizes in appropriate locations which meets local housing needs and recognises the specific accommodation requirements of the aging population and the need for starter homes to help first time buyers.

However, this should also include a commitment to locate new homes in the areas where they are needed.

Representation ID: 2373

SUPPORT Ms Caroline Pick

Summary:

Looks good

Representation ID: 2269

SUPPORT Dr Jon Davies

Summary:

I strongly support the objective to focus economic & social development on maintaining the character of the area, particularly noting the rural character and environmental value. Impacting the rural and environmental character will have a significantly adverse effect on the overall economic and social value of the area,

Representation ID: 2098

SUPPORT Mr Michael Ward

Summary:

Agree

Representation ID: 1960

SUPPORT MRS JANE FAIRCLIFFE

Summary:

seems ok

Representation ID: 1938

SUPPORT FOXTON Parish Council (Mrs A Hall)

Summary:

Page 14 agree

Representation ID: 1937

SUPPORT FOXTON Parish Council (Mrs A Hall)

Summary:

Page 14 Agree

Representation ID: 1747

SUPPORT mr chris faircliffe

Summary:

OK but part 2 is facilitating growth at MP.

Representation ID: 1736

SUPPORT Mr Michael Lord

Summary:

Brownfield sites should be prioritised. Sites must have good public transport links

Representation ID: 1550

COMMENT mrs Emma Andrew

Summary:

People will always travel out of villages for work and then those whose skill set matches the jobs in the village will travel in. The links from the City to a village,like Fleckney are better than those to Market Harborough. Building more houses will not bring more jobs, just more people and cars.

Representation ID: 1514

COMMENT Dr Paul Dimmer

Summary:

An objective to reduce noise pollution should be included somewhere. Traffic noise from major roads is one of the key culprits, and it certainly impacts on many villages in the District.

Representation ID: 1456

COMMENT Historic England (Claire Searson)

Summary:

While we welcome a dedicated objective (7), this makes reference to 'built' heritage. This should be amended to reflect all of the historic environment attributes in the district and to accord with NPPF terminology.
We respectfully suggest the following wording:
7. Historic Environment:
Protect and enhance the character and significance of the District's historic settlements recognising the important contribution that heritage assets make to the distinctiveness of the District's towns, villages, and countryside and the need to secure a high quality public realm

Representation ID: 1424

COMMENT CLAYBROOKE PARVA Parish Council (Maurice C Howell)

Summary:

The objectives are fine other than the paragraph 'Promote sustainable economic growth across the District and existing businesses'. Remove the word 'existing' which will lead to and give an opening in future policy for existing companies like Magna Park to expand without justification.

Representation ID: 1381

COMMENT BURTON OVERY Parish Council (Mrs Kate Barker)

Summary:

Objectives 3, 6 and 7. The re-use of previously developed land and buildings is highly preferable to the wholesale destruction of green fields and attractive countryside which will be inevitable if options 1,5,7, and 9 are taken forward.. Objective 7 should add "for future generations"

Representation ID: 1256

COMMENT Brudenell Estates represented by Landmark Planning Ltd (Lance Wiggins)

Summary:

Housing objective gives too much emphasis on local needs rather than catering for wider needs of society.
Built development objective ignores the fact that there are heritage assets in the countryside (outside of towns and villages) that should be reused practically and beneficially as new housing as advocated in paragraph 55 of the Framework.

Representation ID: 1245

SUPPORT Mrs Dorothy Ward

Summary:

Agree

Representation ID: 1146

COMMENT Mr Lewis Freeman

Summary:

It would appear that this whole section would negate the expansion of Magna Park in the areas of:- create more jobs for local people and reduce out commuting.
Re-use of existing buildings.
Protect and enhance the natural environment against insensitive development.
Developments to reflect 'local character'.
None of the above would allow expansion!

Representation ID: 1130

COMMENT Barratt Homes/David Wilson Homes (Mr Robert Galij)

Summary:

The first Draft Objective ('Housing') should be stregthened by acknowledging the need to meet strategic housing requirements in accordance with the NPPF. As such, I recommend line one under '1 Housing' is amended as follows : '...Meet the strategic housing requirement by providing a range of market and affordable housing types, tenures and...'

Representation ID: 1006

COMMENT KIBWORTH HARCOURT Parish Council (Dr Kevin Feltham)

Summary:

No 14 Neighbourhood Planning should be higher up the list of objectives. As the last in the list, it appears to be an afterthought when under the Localism Act it should be the bedrock on which the Local Plan is built.
Should the objective include something about the Neighbourhood Plans providing local policies which are used to help determine planning applications?

Representation ID: 988

SUPPORT Market Harborough Civic Society (Bernard Bowen)

Summary:

Comprehensive objectives. How will achievement of them be measured. We are very concerned about traffic congestion, air quality in towns, pressure on local services, the poor provision of bus services, and lack of coordination for public transport.

Representation ID: 980

SUPPORT Mr Alastair Willis

Summary:

Quite comprehensive objectives. How is the achievement of them going to be measured, and will there be milestones to monitor progress? I'm very concerned about traffic congestion, air quality in towns, pressure on services locally, the poor provision of bus services, and lack of co-ordination for public transport. Is it too late for there to be a Neighbourhood Plan for Market Harborough in the current dash for more and more housing development?

Representation ID: 976

OBJECT Mrs Jan Butcher

Summary:

Objective 2 must not focus on existing business - too narrow and discriminatory

Representation ID: 960

OBJECT Claybrooke Magna Parish Council (Mrs J P Butcher)

Summary:

Objective 2 must not single out existing business. This is discriminatory.

Representation ID: 819

OBJECT Mrs Barbara Strevens

Summary:

The community of Kibworth will suffer is the infrastructure is not in place. The local school is over capacity, the doctors surgeries are full our roads are loaded with traffic which is increasing. The pollution and noise is a large concern and the density of traffic at peak times causes delays gaining access out of the village. Kibworth cannot cope with this amount of development.

Representation ID: 748

OBJECT Claybrooke Magna Parish Council (Mrs J P Butcher)

Summary:

Item 4 should be explicit that negative impact on environmental issues; particularly carbon emissions, will be given significant weight in planning decisions. Item 7 needs to include reference to maintaining the individual character and separation of settlements

Representation ID: 741

COMMENT Mr Malcolm Stringer

Summary:

Employment: attention should be focused not only on the attempt to reduce out commuting but also massive in commuting which does not contribute to the amenity of the district and impacts massively on the overall sustainability of the district,

Representation ID: 643

SUPPORT Sport England (Steven Beard)

Summary:

Section 4

Representation ID: 572

COMMENT Market Harborough Civic Society (Bernard Bowen)

Summary:

In practice, the objectives for Transport to reduce the use of the car are not being achieved in Market Harborough. A strategy needs to be drawn up for improved bus provision, including increased frequency, reliability and more joined up routes. The same applies to trains.
More attention should be given to accommodating the movement and parking of the car, which will remain the main form of transport in the District.

Representation ID: 557

COMMENT Mrs Jan Butcher

Summary:

Item 4 should be explicit that negative impact on environmental issues; particularly carbon emissions, will be given significant weight in planning decisions.

Item 7 needs to include reference to maintaining the individual character and separation of settlements

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult