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 - Alternative Housing and Employment Options

Representation ID: 5095

COMMENT Leicester City Council (Mr Fabian D'Costa)

Summary:

Leicester City Council Transport Strategy team: We are supportive of developments that reduce the need to travel by private car by locating new development so that people can access services can facilities without the reliance on 'private motor vehicles'. However, until a Transport Assessment and / or robust transport modelling is submitted for each proposal, we would not be in a position to specify the options that we are supportive of.

Representation ID: 5083

COMMENT Leicester City Council (Mr Fabian D'Costa)

Summary:

The East Midlands Regional Plan (2009) established a strategic policy of focusing housing growth on the Leicester urban area. Following the revocation of the Regional Plan there is now no overall housing strategy for the sub region however as you are aware, work has commenced on a Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Growth Plan which will set out a long term strategy for the area.
We would support sustainable options for housing growth in the district that would help sustain the continuing regeneration and development of the city. We would expect the need for new facilities and infrastructure, such as schools and healthcare facilities that would be required as a result of new housing growth to be planned for and provided within Harborough District to avoid pressure on existing facilities in the city. This would be particularly important should a growth strategy for the district seek to focus new housing provision within the principal urban area, on the edge of the city.

Representation ID: 4729

COMMENT Oadby and Wigston Borough Council (Mr Adrian Thorpe)

Summary:

A number fo the different options would have an impact on the Boroguh of Oadby and Wigston either due to the proximity of new housing and employment sites to and/or the amount of extra traffic that the development would place on the A6. Development options in the proximity of the Borough or which would place extra traffic on the A6 will require very careful consideration in the context of:
- relationship with growth already planned in the Borough to 2026 and development options beyond 2026;
- additional congestion on the A6 in the Borough and in Leicester City;
- additional congestion on routes around the A6 (in particular east-west routes, Fosse Park/J21/M1/M69:
- impact on countryside and Green wedge adjoining Leicester PUA.

Representation ID: 4665

COMMENT Cllr Rosita Page

Summary:

The Lutterworth East proposal (Option 8)includes 10 ha of employment land straight at the M1 junction 20. This could be increased to meet future employment and/or distribution land needs. This is a superb strategic, advantageous position far better than Magna Park. There is a further option at Shawell near junction 19 which is also very acceptable. Why should strategic distribution land only be identified to be close to Magna Park?
All consultation options conclude with a sentence referring to additional provision for strategic distribution close to Magna Park. This is biased, leading and not acceptable.
The scale of contribution towards the regional delivery of further strategic distribution/employment land has not yet been identified.

Representation ID: 3278

COMMENT Davidsons Developments Limited represented by Bidwells (David Bainbridge)

Summary:

We agree that the Principal Urban Area (PUA), the Sub Regional Centre and the Key Centres of Broughton Astley and Lutterworth represent the larger settlements within the district and are the most sustainable for development. Throughout the settlement hierarchy it is important that the delivery of growth reflects the objectively assessed housing needs for this part of the housing market.

Representation ID: 3235

SUPPORT MR Michael Wilcox

Summary:

spreads the load

Representation ID: 2737

OBJECT Mr O Tebbs represented by Hutchinsons Planning (Mr Keith Hutchinson)

Summary:

Whilst we support the identification of major strategiic sites for new housing, we disagree that sites in smaller settlements such as Ullesthorpe will not be identified as allocations (Paragraph 49). The NPPF makes it quite clear that development should be plan-led and the bringing forward of such sites on an "ad hoc" basis would seem to conflict with the principles of national planning policy.

Representation ID: 2507

COMMENT Jo Brodrick

Summary:

The development of 2 SDAs would reduce pressure on the towns where transport infrastructure is challenging and therefore is an attractive proposition since towns and larger villages have taken a large proportion of the housing growth over the last decade.

Representation ID: 2300

COMMENT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

This approach makes defining sites in emerging Neighbourhood Plans very difficult and could conflict with the housing needs of the local community.

Representation ID: 2296

COMMENT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

Housing growth should be dependent on where economic growth is taking place or where existing employment is available so as to reduce the number of commuter journeys. It is clear that there is a need across the country for more warehousing to satisfy the online ordering. Lutterworth is well placed to provide such growth and therefore some housing development would be required to accommodate additional workers

Representation ID: 1732

COMMENT BROUGHTON ASTLEY Parish Council (Debbie Barber)

Summary:

Broughton Astley Parish Council feels there is no need to comment on the contents of the Local Plan due to there being an adopted Neighbourhood Plan in place, which includes the provision to accommodate additional growth for housing.

Representation ID: 1609

OBJECT Dr Paul Dimmer

Summary:

I object to the fact that all options assume some expansion of Magna Park. The fact that an option of no expansion of Magna Park has been considered, particularly when the currently operating Core Strategy opposes expansion, could be considered to be a dereliction of duty by the planning authorities.

Representation ID: 1442

OBJECT Mr & Mrs M E Broome represented by Fowler Architecture & Planning Ltd (Mr Aaron Smith)

Summary:

Each option should be amended to reflect the housing requirement being expressed as a minimum figure, such as 'at least.... new dwellings' in the Plan period.

As per the Representor's comments in relation to the Settlement Strategy, groups of settlements, whereby any minimum housing requirement allocated to one settlement should be capable of being disaggregated to its hinterland in accordance with NPPF at paragraph 55. This would better recognise the role of groups of smaller settlements, such as The Langtons, where a network of villages supports a range of local services and facilities.

Representation ID: 1290

COMMENT Swift Valley Partnership (Mr Dennis Singer)

Summary:

The numbers of houses required in HDC is a reflection of the economic and population growth across the country. Distributions of where this growth is to be accommodated is intended to be dependent on the economic activity being generated in that area/district, generalised through the country. Housing requirements should follow the employment if they are to be located so as to avoid, as far as is possible, extensive commuter travelling. Since no decision has been made on the Magna Park proposals it is too early to speculate where new housing should principally be located.




Representation ID: 902

SUPPORT Mr Robert Mitchell

Summary:

I support option C

Representation ID: 900

SUPPORT Mr Robert Mitchell

Summary:

Concentrate in urban areas

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

Powered by OpusConsult