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 - Q3. Which Housing and Employment Option(s) do you favour? You can select a single option, a number of options or suggest a new option. You can also tell us which options you don't like.

Representation ID: 5019

COMMENT Mr John L. Marlow


Quite frankly the options as presented provide a very confused and often contradictory picture.

I am not convinced that a thorough survey has been carried out across the district. I am also concerned about a situation where target dwelling totals for small rural settlements (e.g. Dunton Bassett) are high when it is argued that they would fall within (say) Option 3 where only 20% of the required growth required would be met by the rural settlements.

Other locations - I have made a suggestion of my own - the presence of Bruntingthorpe Proving Ground has already generated deep concern over persistent noise caused throughout the surrounding villages. It could be the site of major new housing development.

Representation ID: 4960

COMMENT Mr John Martin


Whilst apparently not being an option, I consider that to predict the needs of the area is almost impossible with any accuracy and a plan that was regularly updated in line with then legislation and requirements would be a much better option. This could possibly eliminate the significant waste of money incurred when the Core Strategy became obsolete.

Representation ID: 4913

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)


Transportation Comments:
In respect of the possibility of further substantial growth on the eastern edge of the PUA (Bushby, Thurnby, etc.), transport evidence underpinning the current Core Strategy highlighted the risks that over-lapping impacts with growth to the north-east of the PUA (including the Charnwood SUE) could cause potentially significant strategic traffic issues, including on roads within Leicester City. There are also known to be concerns about more localised traffic conditions.

Representation ID: 4905

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)


It is considered that the various distribution options are unnecessarily complex and that the approach to the indicative figures is not overly clear.

Representation ID: 4898

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)


Assets comments
The following comments are made by Strategic Property Services Asset Management Group in relation to the County Council's role as landowner.
LCC's main land interests in Harborough District that it would seek to promote through this consultation are as follows:

* Misterton County Farms Estate (Lutterworth SDA).

* Land south of Lutterworth Road/Coventry Road, Lutterworth (employment)

* Welford Road, Husbands Bosworth (residential)

* Ashby Road, Ullesthorpe (residential)

* Gaulby Road, Billesdon (employment)

* Airfield Business Park, Market Harborough (employment)

Representation ID: 4897

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)


Economic Growth comments:
Regarding general employment provision it is noted that Options 5 to 9 would result in a higher level of employment provision than evidence indicates is required in the district; however, as acknowledged, the longer lead times for the Strategic Development Areas, coupled with the delivery of employment land often towards the end of the delivery of a Strategic Development Area means this approach is supported.

Representation ID: 4896

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)


Archaeology Comments:
Detailed appraisal of the heritage implications of each of the main housing options are required. At best superficial consideration of the issues have been included in the submitted documentation and supporting Sustainability Appraisal.There appears to be an advantage to focusing development on a limited number of sites, thus reducing the impact of development across the borough and to a large number of historic settlements. However the chosen locations will be much more significantly affected. It is therefore essential that thorough consideration is given to the assessment of heritage impacts to evaluate the sustainability of the respective options.

Representation ID: 4883

COMMENT Grace Homes represented by Pegasus (Ms Joanne Althorpe)


Grace Homes consider that the various distribution options are unnecessarily complex and the approach to the indicative figures for all the settlement is not overly clear. Further explanation of the distribution figures at Appendix C is required. A more flexible approach to development in SRVs is needed and the options should reflect the availability of sites and development opportunities within settlements.
Grace Homes accepts that the development of a SDA is likely to be required to meet housing need but does not have a fixed view on the most appropriate location for the SDA. The provision of 2 SDAs cannot be supported as it is considered to restrict housing supply elsewhere in the district.

Representation ID: 4857

COMMENT Mr Michael Lenihan


It is accepted that the district has got to deliver housing growth.
However in order to protect our rural villages from future large scale development without any infrastructure it is important that major infrastructure projects and a by-pass for Lutterworth are undertaken that have a future positive impact on the town and surrounding villages.

Representation ID: 4851

COMMENT Tarmac Ltd represented by Ms Jenna Conway


Of the nine strategic options, we consider that focusing development in urban areas would potentially neglect opportunities for employment uses on previously developed land in rural areas, such as the Shawell plant site. Utilising the existing access and established employment uses of the area (Monier Tile Works are adjacent to the Shawell plant site) the site provides a great opportunity for redevelopment which retains employment in a sustainable location.
We consider the retention of existing employment land in rural areas to be significant in contributing to employment land availability. The spatial strategy for employment options should reflect the contribution made by employment sites dispersed throughout the District.

Representation ID: 4847

SUPPORT R.W. & H.J. Dewes represented by Pegasus Planning Group (Mr Guy Longley)


The inclusion of further strategic distribution devlopment as part of the proposed options is supported. Land in our client's control, shown on the attached plan, presents an alternative option for the expansion of Magna Park to those presented in the Options Consultation.

Representation ID: 4840

COMMENT Mr Stephen Lucas


An SDA at Lutterworth would require substantive investmentin infrastructure. Magna Park is not annotated on any of the plans. This is a mistake which should be addressed a the options plan stage as the location is a major emplyment location. The plans should also show nearby urban centres. There are obvious and clear strategic implications for other districts and counties.

Representation ID: 4822

SUPPORT Wheatcroft Properties Ltd represented by Pegasus Planning Group (Mr Guy Longley)


Wheatcroft properties Ltd has interests in land at Marlborough Way Fleckney which is identified for allocation an employment site across all the options presented. The proposed allocation is supported. It represents a logical extension to the existing employment land off Churchill Way, relates well to the existing settlement form and would not impact on wider landscape setting of the village. We have no specific comment or preference in relation to the options presented.

Representation ID: 4816

OBJECT Millers Homes represented by Pegasus (Ms Joanne Althorpe)


Miller Homes cannot support any of the options due to their approach to restricting development at Broughton Astley. The Local Plan should consider additional growth in Broughton Astley and consult on these options to ensure it is considering reasonable alternatives. Additional growth is considered by Miller Homes to be appropriate, given the settlement's status as a Key Centre. It is suggested that the Local Plan provides for additional growth, and it would fall to the Neighbourhood Plan to be reviewed and allocate additional housing sites.
The fact that planned improvements to services and facilities have not yet been delivered in BA, should not prevent additional housing development being considered in the medium to long term of the plan period, or mixed used development in the short-term.

Representation ID: 4764

COMMENT Natural England (Mr Sean Mahoney)


We welcome the commitment in paragraph 39 for the new local plan to set out the strategy for objectively meeting Harborough's housing needs to 2031 through sustainable development which ensures infrastructure is delivered, local communities are protected, environmental capacity is respected and the quality of the built environment and heritage assets are protected. It would be inappropriate for Natural England to express any preferences. We would simply reiterate the environmental concerns need to be taken into account.

Representation ID: 4739

COMMENT Oadby and Wigston Borough Council (Mr Adrian Thorpe)


It is of note that the recent Leicester and Leicestershire Transport Study to 2031 concluded that it is tenable to continue with the current housing market area wide spatial distribution to 2031. For Harborough District this would appear to provide appropriate evidence to support Option 2 - Core Strategy Distribution. It would not support the other options that are being consulted upon because these differ from the current housing market area wide spatial distribution strategy.

Representation ID: 4636

OBJECT Mr Derek Shears


I find the Harborough District Plan for the period up to 2031, in respect of Thurnby ,Bushby, and Houghton, to be an abomination. It is so grossly excessive that it simply beggars belief that very important countryside is to be built upon to satisfy a non-essential demand. Building lots of houses and saturating the environment is not conducive to proper use of the countryside for future generations.

Representation ID: 4380

COMMENT Highways England (Miss Shirley Henderson)


Highways England has conducted a high level review of the nine options. Options 6, 8 and 9 identify Lutterworth as a Strategic Development Area (SDA). Highways England considers that the scale of this development growth and its proximity to the A5 and M1 junctions 19 and 20 has the potential to impact upon the operation of the SRN. This is reflected in "Settlement Sections" which states that these options have the potential to impact on the M1.
There is also potential for the other options to impact upon the performance of the SRN.

Representation ID: 4314

COMMENT Millers Homes represented by Hunter Page Planning (Mr Guy Wakefield)


Option Sets B and C propose a greater distribution of housing towards Strategic Development Areas. This raises a number of concerns relating to the delivery of housing within the plan period. Strategic Development Areas are often associated with infrastructure delivery issues which lead to a delay in the delivery of housing. Such a delay will have a detrimental impact on the 5 year housing land supply which is required by national planning policy and guidance.

Representation ID: 4302



Virtually all the settlements in the area are limited by their design and resultant road systems. Although the most rural are not likely to be overly affected in themselves and are no doubt least likely to be built up by houses or businesses, those that feed into larger conurbations and the larger conurbations themselves will.

My point is, there is the A6 by pass to the east of the town but nothing to the west resulting in the need to create rat runs and congestion throughout Harborough town area. The same would be for Lutterworth and Kibworth.

Representation ID: 4268

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


It is Cliffe Investments' submission that a more flexible approach to development in the SRV's should be adopted. This flexible approach should include the allocation of a mix of sites of various scales. Furthermore, opportunities for development on sites within SRV's should be on the basis of their capacity and availability. Land at Vicarage Drive (SHLAA ref A/FX/HSG/02) provides such an opportunity within Foxton.

Representation ID: 4182

COMMENT Fisher German LLP (Miss Liberty Stones)


Great Bowden should be elevated to a RuralCenre in the proposed hierarchy and additional dwellings allocated accordingly. Great Bowden is a sustainable location for development offering a number of key services and could support expansion.

Representation ID: 4180

COMMENT William Davis Limited (SARAH JINKS)


In order to meet 475 new dwellings per annum we support greater focus on the delivery of housing in rural settlement.
Harborough as a rural district has a number of large rural centres and selected rural villages with a good range of existing services and facilities, providing sustainable settlements. Focusing development in these settlements will help sustain local facilities. A wider distribution of the housing requirment would also increase the rate of deliveruy with more sites contributiing to completions, rather than being limited to on or two SDAs. Including as many sites as possible in the Local Plan would help boost housing land supply and increase the likelihood of delivery. We favour options 1, 2, 4 and 5.

Representation ID: 4101

COMMENT DLA Town Planning (David Lane)


In broad terms we consider those options that follow the Core Strategy approach (options 1-3) represent the best and most sustainable approach to accommodating objectively assessed need in Harborough district. The settlement hierarchy within the Core Strategy was evidence based, was found sound by an Inspector following examination and reflects the availability of services and facilities in the District. The situation has not changed materially since adoption of the Core Strategy and we feel that a continuation of this broad approach is the most appropriate option for Harborough District.

Representation ID: 4054

COMMENT Daventry District Council (Mr Tom James)


As the plan develops due consideration should be given to the potential impact of additional housing growth at Market Harborough on the infrastructure and amenity of settlements situated to the south and east of the town within Daventry District- particularly as prospective residents seek to access the strategic road network at Junction 1 and 2 of the A14.

Representation ID: 4026

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


It is considered that the options within Set B (One Strategic Development Area) and Set C (Two Strategic Development Areas) are wholly inappropriate for the District. Set A (Variations on current distribution of development) provides the most suitable approach to future development, with Option 1 considered to be the most appropriate. This would ensure that each settlement receives a sufficient influx of market and affordable dwellings whilst retaining the character of the larger market towns and rural settlements.

Representation ID: 3983

COMMENT Cllr Phil Knowles


Market Harborough and the Bowdens have been the recipients of hundreds of homes with hundreds of more already planned.

Our view, perhaps a few more homes could be accommodated in Market Harborough and The Bowdens over the coming years. The number should be in the low hundreds, the sites should be small pockets, almost infill

For larger numbers of new homes other areas in other parts of the District with suitable infrastructure, accessibility to major road networks and the like should be considered.

Representation ID: 3973

COMMENT Mr Ray Christian


The building of houses should be more equal and spread around the county evenly. Scraptoft and Thurnby have taken additional developmemnt. Market Harborough should be allocated further housing.

Representation ID: 3845

COMMENT Anglian Water Services Ltd (Mr Stewart Patience)


As a sewerage undertaker no preference, however, all housing sites within our area of responsibility will require a connection to the existing foul sewerage network which may include upgrades. Similarly additional housing development may have an impact on existing water recycling centres (formerly wastewater treatment works) dependent upon the location of proposed sites. This will be dependent upon the location, scale and phasing of housing proposed within Harborough District.

Representation ID: 3813

COMMENT Mr Peter Mitchell


I would support a combination of options 6 and 7 with fewr houses in Lutterworth to reduce the impact on Misterton. It seems more sensible for housing development to be closer to major trunk roads and to be concentrated more in urban areas as this will enable the more efficient allocation of infrastructure rather than having an even distribution over the district as indicated in option 1

Representation ID: 3799

COMMENT Ullesthorpe Parish Council (Mrs Katherine Clarke)


The district has got to deliver housing growth.

In order to protect our rural villages from future large scale development without any infrastructure ,option 8 and 9 will secure major infrastructure and a by-pass for Lutterworth having a future positive impact on the town and surrounding villages.

Representation ID: 3664

OBJECT Mr Simon Smith


i object

Representation ID: 3650

COMMENT Mr Simon Smith


the district has to deliver housing growth

Representation ID: 3444

COMMENT Leicestershire County Council (Mr Richard Clark)


Detailed appraisal of the heritage implications of each of the main housing options are required. At best superficial consideration of the issues have been included in the submitted documentation and supporting Sustainability Appraisal.

Representation ID: 3328

COMMENT Environment Agency (Mr Nick Wakefield)


The attached letter provides the Environment Agency's response to Q3, and includes the following topics:
Flood Risk. All new development should be steered away from areas at flood risk.
Water Quality. The foul effluent resulting from new development must not be allowed to cause deterioration in the water environment.
Water Resources / Supplies / Efficiency. The availability of and efficient use of water will be important to new development.
The Water Framework Directive (WFD). The Local Authority has a duty to contribute to the achievement of the WFD.
Biodiversity. New development should protect and enhance existing habitats.

Representation ID: 2863

OBJECT Bovis Homes Ltd represented by Star Planning & Development (David Barnes)


The distribution of the housing growth should be either Option 1 or Option 2 (or a variation thereof) with growth spread across the District at the higher order settlement with only limited growth at other settlements (i.e. Selected Rural Villages).

Representation ID: 2794

COMMENT David Wilson Homes East Midlands (Helen Bareford)


Options 5, 7 and 9 are supported in terms of the amount of development provsion in Kibworth. Development west of Kibworth is supported, and it is considered this land performs well in terms of the capacity for development.
Object to options 3, 4, 6 and 8. These options provide no development for Kibworth until beyond 2031. This is not positive planning or a sustainable option.
Option 2 does not provide enough housing in Kibworth, and thereby does not reflect its position as the largest Rural Centre. Option 1 is welcomed however should be a minimum housing figure for Kibworth.

Representation ID: 2439

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


An alternative option would be a distribution similar to Option 1, Variation on the current distribution strategy - with an enhanced rural focus, but with the inclusion of development at Broughton Astley. The dwelling allocations to each of the settlements would be adjusted downwards, in accordance with the allocation at Broughton Astley. A sensible level of development at Broughton Astley would be approximately 450, in broad alignment with the proportionate increase but would require further testing.

Representation ID: 2407

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


We do not support any of the development options; all neglect to consider the potential of planning for any further development at Broughton Astley and as such, they do not consider all reasonable alternatives.

Representation ID: 2358

COMMENT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)


Perhaps a new settlement would be a good idea - suggest maybe somewhere in region of Bruntingthorpe with new access to motorway with employment land also allocate din this area. A new settlement anywhere in the district could be more innovative than trying to fit in homes here and there.

Representation ID: 2349

COMMENT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)


Perhaps the information to be included in these tests would be helpful in our determination of the best options - will we have another opportunity to comment after all test are made public or will it be left to the council to decide. Information available is incomplete so unable to make an informed comment

Representation ID: 2210



Support Option 9

Representation ID: 2065

COMMENT Mr Simon Cook


Favour 6 and 9

Representation ID: 1806

COMMENT Mr Christopher Gladman


I do not favour any of the options that propose an SDA for Kibworth. Development on such a scale would totally overwhelm the villages, even with a bypass. Any bypass would only happen with developer funding and would have to be built in phases, over the course of massive development to the north east of Kibworth. This would create havoc for residents and destroy the rural and historic character. It is also likely that the cost of a bypass would leave no funding for other vital infrastructure/ facilities improvements.

Representation ID: 1457

COMMENT Historic England (Claire Searson)


In the assessment of these, impacts upon heritage assets should be assessed and in order to provide a sound basis for growth in the district.

Representation ID: 1425

COMMENT CLAYBROOKE PARVA Parish Council (Maurice C Howell)


We appreciate that the District has got to deliver housing growth.
There is ample space in the Great Glen and Scraptoft areas for housing and employment growth.
The 10ha of employment land in the Lutterworth East proposal could be increased. This is directly off M1 Junction 20 and in a preferred location to Magna Park.
There is also adjacent land identified near Junction 19 of the M1 at Shawell which is also acceptable.

Representation ID: 1380



Great Easton can take up to 14 dwellings, 5% of the existing total. Further housing development should be provided in urban areas around existing employment and to cut traffic.
A care home / sheltered housing should be considered for Great Easton.

Representation ID: 1311

COMMENT Ms Julia Weaver


Great Easton should take up to 32 dwellings, including affordable and starter homes, at low density, and spread across a series of sites.
Larger developments should be located in urban areas due to the lack of rural infrastructure

Representation ID: 1291

OBJECT Swift Valley Partnership (Mr Dennis Singer)


I oppose any of the proposals to try and pigeonhole the selection of locations for housing development prior to knowing where the need will be most required. The location for new housing should largely follow the employment and economic expansion locations to avoid exaggerating the already predominant 'in and out' commuter pattern of the district. This is where real substantial sustainability objectives can be achieved - by reducing long distance commuting and not trying to suggest that short distance travelling options are severely constrained by inappropriate policy that does not make a substantial contribution towards sustainability.

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

Powered by OpusConsult