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 - Option 1: Rural

Representation ID: 5147

COMMENT Environment Agency (Mr Nick Wakefield)

Summary:

From a flooding prepective, in line with NPPF, sites located within Flood Zone 1 would be our preferred location for growth in the District. Sites located within FZ3b is not permitted for residential development and would only be appropriate for a very limited type of employment development. Sites in FZ 3a and 2 must be sequentially tested from a flooding perspective and whenever possible development should also be steered away from these locations.
The River Swift flows through the southern part of Lutterworth and is a tributary of the River Avon. The river has a history of flooding in Lutterworth, most recently in 2008. housing development of the scale proposed in Options 6, 8 and 9 would significantly increase the surface water runoo into the River Swift and its tributaries. It will be necessary for this to be managed at source so that flood risk is not increased further downstream in Rugby.
The Scraptoft/Thurnby/Bushby area's flow towards the city of Leicester, so increased development around those locations could increase the risk of flooding in the City.
With reference to the flood maps, areas to the west of the District identified as being at flood risk include: the area west of Fleckney, south of Great Glen, south of Newton Harcourt, the Broughton Astley area, east of Ullesthorpe, and north and west of Leire.

Representation ID: 5086

COMMENT Leicester City Council (Mr Fabian D'Costa)

Summary:

Leicester City Council Transport Strategy team: This would be the least sustainable option. It would be more appropriate to locate housing in larger settlements so people can access services and facilities without the reliance of the private motor car.

Representation ID: 5005

OBJECT Bloor Homes Ltd, Jelson Ltd and Davidsons Developments Ltd represented by Pegasus Planning Group (Mr Guy Longley)

Summary:

Object to option 1.

Representation ID: 4990

SUPPORT Mr &Mrs D Giles and 1 other

Summary:

Support option 1. The best plan would be to build a small number of houses into every village. have smaller properties for OAP's been considered?

Representation ID: 4982

SUPPORT Mr R Mackness

Summary:

Support option 1. The best plan would be to build a small number fo houses onto every village. Have smaller properties for OAP's been considered?

Representation ID: 4911

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Economic Growth Comments:
Need to emphasise the importance of Leicestershire's rural economy and the need to ensure market and affordable housing is provided to meet identified local needs; whilst at the same time minimising the risks of creating unsustainable patterns of development.
To ensure sites are truly deliverable 'certainty' that development(s) are financially viable needs to be emphasised, particularly if the supporting infrastructure required is extensive.

Representation ID: 4910

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Education Comments:
* Note in the rural area there are some school sites which are confined and there would be difficulty extending the existing school in following rural settlements: Houghton-on-the-Hill, Husbands Bosworth, Claybrooke Magna, Dunton Bassett, Gilmorton, Great Bowden, Tilton and Tugby.
* Infill in Market Harborough would be problematic from an education perspective, so an SDA would provide scope for education planning to provide a new school.

Representation ID: 4907

OBJECT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Transport Comments:
Option one is not favoured. Whilst the County Council recognises the importance of Leicestershire's rural economy and the need to ensure housing is provided to meet identified local needs, it is important to minimise the risks of creating unsustainable patterns of development. With support for conventional bus services already reduced, the ongoing squeeze on local government spending will necessitate the need for further savings. Thus, a growth strategy that is significantly rural biased is likely to produce a pattern of travel that is heavily car dependent and/or runs the risk of people being isolated from employment opportunities and other social needs. The County Highway Authority does not, therefore, favour this option.

Representation ID: 4878

OBJECT Mrs Elaine Derrick

Summary:

Our villages have already seen very substantial new residential development, much against local wishes ,and I believe have met the target numbers set by HDC for residential development .The suggested options will turn our villages into mere suburbs of Leicester rather than separate communities. Our local facilities are already up to capacity.

The current road network from all points of the compass is inadequate ,whilst the huge volume of traffic through Thurnby and Bushby, much of it speeding, completely destroys quality of life and community cohesion.

Increased pollution, and the loss of good quality agricultural land, from further development also needs to be recognised.

Representation ID: 4860

OBJECT Mr Michael Lenihan

Summary:

Object to option 1

Representation ID: 4841

SUPPORT Mr Stephen Lucas

Summary:

Options 1 or 2 reflect the rural basis of the district with the necessary emphsis on the larger district settlement. This seems the most equitable given the nature of the district and we support thes two options.

Representation ID: 4826

OBJECT Kate Gamble

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 4799

OBJECT Mrs Sarah Mettrick

Summary:

Object to Option 1 for following reasons:
- Traffic in the village is already a major problem including accessing the A6.
- The village's infrastructure cannot cope with further demand. Doctors Surgery's and both schools would be unable to facilitate such an increase in numbers.
- The history and heritage of Kibworth is substantial and it is important to protect the village's identity. Equally important is preserving the open landscape around it to protect the character and setting of the village.
- Harborough District Council should uphold the Core Plan regarding no development in Kibworth other than small scale infill.

Representation ID: 4781

SUPPORT Mr Mullins

Summary:

Support option 1

Representation ID: 4740

OBJECT Brian Newman

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 4730

SUPPORT Mohamed Muster

Summary:

Support Option 1

Representation ID: 4720

SUPPORT Jean Mitchell

Summary:

Support Option 1

Representation ID: 4711

OBJECT Mary Bailess

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 4702

OBJECT Janet Lount

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 4692

OBJECT Mrs I Orzel

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 4683

OBJECT P. Panham

Summary:

Object to option 1.

Representation ID: 4646

SUPPORT Mr R Taylor

Summary:

Support option 1.

Representation ID: 4637

OBJECT Mr R. Orzel

Summary:

Object to option 1

Representation ID: 4627

OBJECT Mr Roger Sharman

Summary:

Object to this option

Representation ID: 4612

OBJECT Mr Robertson

Summary:

Object to option 1

Representation ID: 4599

OBJECT Ms Susan Sharman

Summary:

Object to this option

Representation ID: 4590

OBJECT Mr & Mrs T Shaw and 1 other

Summary:

Object to option 1

Representation ID: 4581

OBJECT Ms Laura Stanford

Summary:

Object to option 1

Representation ID: 4563

SUPPORT The Co-operative Group (Mr Matthew Stafford)

Summary:

TCG consider Option 1: Rural to be the best approach to meeting the borough's future housing needs which would see a more balanced distribution of development across the borough to best support and sustain all communities.

Representation ID: 4551

OBJECT Jayne Sturgess

Summary:

Object to option 1

Representation ID: 4542

OBJECT Mr Graham Sturgess

Summary:

Object to option 1

Representation ID: 4533

OBJECT Mr T Bailess

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 4520

OBJECT Mr Tim Martin

Summary:

Object to Option 1.

Representation ID: 4502

SUPPORT Mr J Blenkin represented by Aitchison Raffety (Mr Jonathan Weekes)

Summary:

Support:There is a clear requirement to provide housing to meet the needs of the whole community. Whilst there is a desire to direct housing towards the most sustainable locations, the need to provide housing choice to the rural areas must also be addressed. Re: House prices - failure to allow sufficient growth of the larger, more sustainable or accessible villages will further inflate the housing prices in the rural areas. Failure to allow sufficient growth of the larger, more sustainable or accessible villages will only further inflate the housing prices in the rural areas. Options 1 and 2 do not constrain the growth of the larger, urban locations within the district,therefore they represent a balaced approach to the distribution of development.

Representation ID: 4467

OBJECT S Knott

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 4456

SUPPORT Thurnby And Bushby Society (Mr Jeffrey Rosenthal)

Summary:

We support Rural Focus because it is important to keep village communities alive and to take pressure off crowded urban roads.

Representation ID: 4445

SUPPORT Mrs R Johnson

Summary:

Support Option 1

Representation ID: 4436

SUPPORT L Johnson

Summary:

Support Option 1

Representation ID: 4428

SUPPORT K. J. Tutt

Summary:

Support option 1

Representation ID: 4421

OBJECT Ms Jo Johnson

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 4409

SUPPORT Mrs Julia Tyres

Summary:

Support option 1

Representation ID: 4385

OBJECT Mr John Hooley

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 4384

SUPPORT Mr C Tyres

Summary:

Support this option.

Representation ID: 4371

OBJECT Mr J Illsley

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 4359

OBJECT Mr & Mrs R Hill

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 4349

OBJECT Mr Braden Hill

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 4330

OBJECT Ms Siegfried Headley

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 4315

OBJECT Mr Paul Hart

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 4307

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

Summary:

Miller Homes are of the view that Option A - option 1: Rural is the most appropriate housing distribution strategy put forward. Both the NPPF and NPPG place a great emphasis on the role that rural housing growth can play to the rural economy. Such an approach would deliver further affordable housing in rural areas and sustain rural services. Miller Homes have control of a site in Great Glen.

Representation ID: 4304

OBJECT Susan Hart

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 4290

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Haines

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 4255

SUPPORT Mr Michael Glover

Summary:

Support Option 1

Representation ID: 4246

SUPPORT Ms Davena Glover

Summary:

Support Option 1

Representation ID: 4244

SUPPORT Mr Ryan Astill

Summary:

Preferred Option 1 with the following modifications:
Reclassification of Great Glen based upon its sustainability and location on the periphery of the PUA.
Increased residential apportionment to Great Glen based upon its reclassification as both a PUA settlement and its importance as a centre to surrounding rural communities.
SUE's to form the basis of new development to Principal Urban Area (PUA), Sub Regional Centre, Key Centres and Rural Centres with new development within Settlements identified as selected rural villages, sub-selected rural villages and other settlements coming forward when identified by applicants through a Parish Based Local Housing Needs Assessment.

Representation ID: 4224

SUPPORT Mr Ryan Astill

Summary:

Preferred option with:
Great Glen reclassified based on its sustainability and location on the periphery of the PUA;
Great Glen given an increased apportionment based on its reclassification;
and
SUE's to form the basis of new development to Principal Urban Area (PUA), Sub Regional Centre, Key Centres and Rural Centres with new development within Settlements identified as selected rural villages, sub-selected rural villages and other settlements coming forward when identified by applicants through a Parish Based Local Housing Needs Assessment.

Representation ID: 4202

OBJECT GREAT EASTON Parish Council (Mr David Gibley)

Summary:

Object to Option 1 as not sustainable and will generate excessive travel without enabling effective centres to develop to provide services. Urban concentration is preferred.

Representation ID: 4192

OBJECT J Frisby

Summary:

Object to option 1

Representation ID: 4183

SUPPORT William Davis Limited (SARAH JINKS)

Summary:

We favour this option which provides for a wider distribution of the housing requirment across the District thus delivering houses to support sustainable rural settlements.

Representation ID: 4150

OBJECT Mrs Frances Bailess

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 4140

OBJECT Mr Andrew Walling

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 4121

SUPPORT M Earl

Summary:

Support Option 1

Representation ID: 4112

OBJECT Ms Elaine Howorth

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 4103

COMMENT DLA Town Planning (David Lane)

Summary:

While the continuation of the Core Strategy approach to development is welcome, the particular focus on rural areas is not considered to be the most sustainable approach. The SA report showed a negative environmental impact, together with a negative resource use impact (option 1 was found to be the worst option in terms of resource use).
We support the Council's identification of Overstone Park as the site to deliver the scale of development associated with this option (a total of 807 dwellings for Market Harborough).

Representation ID: 4090

SUPPORT J Dilks

Summary:

Support Option 1

Representation ID: 4075

OBJECT N Dean

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 4066

OBJECT Ms Gill Dean

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 4061

OBJECT Ms Judith Windley

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 4055

OBJECT Mr Brian Windley

Summary:

Object to this option

Representation ID: 4037

SUPPORT Mrs Alison Cryer

Summary:

Support Option 1

Representation ID: 4024

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

Summary:

Option 1 is the most appropriate option for housing and employment development is considered to be one of rural disbursement. Indeed, the Draft Vision highlights that the District is a predominately rural area of villages and market towns. As such, Option 1 would best reflect the needs of the District over the emerging Plan period. Indeed, through spreading future development evenly across the District, it will ensure that each community gains a sustainable influx of market and affordable housing.

Representation ID: 4018

OBJECT Mr & Mrs D Crofts

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 3994

OBJECT Mr Michael Cole

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 3984

OBJECT Ms Pamela Cole

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 3974

OBJECT Ms Susan Clarke

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 3964

OBJECT Mrs Sally Champion

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 3955

OBJECT Mr W Carlton

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 3945

OBJECT S Canham

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 3925

OBJECT Ms Caroline Bright

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 3898

OBJECT Ms Carole Beretta

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 3887

SUPPORT Mr & Mrs D Barratt

Summary:

Support Option 1

Representation ID: 3878

OBJECT Mr M Bailey

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 3866

OBJECT Mrs Brenda Newman

Summary:

Object to option 1

Representation ID: 3857

OBJECT Ms Barbara Hooley

Summary:

Object to this option.

Representation ID: 3846

COMMENT Anglian Water Services Ltd (Mr Stewart Patience)

Summary:

Option 1(Rural Focus) proposes a more dispersed pattern of development and provides for a greater share of housing at smaller settlements within our area of responsibility identified as Rural Centres and Selected Rural Centres. This is likely to have a greater impact on Anglian Water's infrastructure within these catchments than the other available options. However the options paper does not identify specific housing allocations sites with the exception of potential allocation sites at Market Harborough and Kibworth which are located within our area of responsibility.

Anglian Water would wish to comment further on the implications for existing infrastructure within our area of responsibility when specific housing allocation sites in these areas have been identified by Harborough District Council.

Representation ID: 3834

SUPPORT Ms Shaveen Akhtar

Summary:

Support this option.

Representation ID: 3800

SUPPORT Mr Christopher Long

Summary:

Villages can take some housing if planned symphatically

Representation ID: 3758

OBJECT Mr Christopher Long

Summary:

Not beneficial to Cotesbach residents

Representation ID: 3742

OBJECT Miss Ruth Thompson

Summary:

object

Representation ID: 3709

SUPPORT Mr Andy Bromley

Summary:

Seems the fairest distribution of development for the district

Representation ID: 3690

OBJECT MR ANDREW EMMINS

Summary:

The schools and Doctors surgeries are full to capacity as is - every year group has far too many children already. I can never get a Doctors appointment.
It takes forever to get onto the a6 in the morning already, let alone when there will be more cars on the roads

Representation ID: 3668

OBJECT Mr Simon Smith

Summary:

i object

Representation ID: 3663

OBJECT MRS ROSANNA EMMINS

Summary:

The schools and Doctors surgeries are full to capacity as is - every year group has far too many children already. I can never get a Doctors appointment.
It takes forever to get onto the a6 in the morning already, let alone when there will be more cars on the roads

Representation ID: 3651

OBJECT Mr Simon Smith

Summary:

i object

Representation ID: 3645

OBJECT Mr Christopher Long

Summary:

Not beneficial to Cotesbach residents

Representation ID: 3619

SUPPORT mrs ami benning

Summary:

brilliant idea, how inspired, do it

Representation ID: 3603

COMMENT THURNBY AND BUSHBY Parish Council (Mrs S Bloy)

Summary:

: While it is acknowledged that this option would spread the distribution of housing, the benefits on infrastructure across the District would be proportionately low.

Representation ID: 3599

OBJECT Mr Vincent Brown

Summary:

I strongly object to this proposal.

Representation ID: 3591

COMMENT THURNBY AND BUSHBY Parish Council (Mrs S Bloy)

Summary:

While it is acknowledged that this option would spread the distribution of housing, the benefits on infrastructure across the District would be proportionately low.

Representation ID: 3587

SUPPORT Mr Ian Jameson

Summary:

Load spread

Representation ID: 3582

OBJECT Dr Ian Flanagan

Summary:

I object

Representation ID: 3581

OBJECT Dr Ian Flanagan

Summary:

I object

Representation ID: 3560

OBJECT Mrs Charlotte Johnston

Summary:

This option spreading housing over the rural areas will change the whole character of the region by increasing the size and changing the character of rural villages

Representation ID: 3490

SUPPORT Landmark Planning Ltd (Lance Wiggins) represented by Landmark Planning Ltd (Lance Wiggins)

Summary:

This option whereby a more dispersed, rurally focused approach is favoured would respond well to market demand which would aid deliverability. The seven Rural Centres are well located in relation to services and facilities and Fleckney in particular could cater for the level of development envisaged in this scenario without significant detriment to its landscape setting or environment in general. It would avoid over-reliance on large Sustainable Urban Extensions which have large, expensive infrastructure requirements and meet the Government's aim of significantly boosting housing delivery in the short term.

Representation ID: 3483

SUPPORT Mr Kenneth Hollinshead

Summary:

Within structural compatibility .

Representation ID: 3435

OBJECT Lutterworth East Landowners represented by Gary Stephens

Summary:

Option 1 (Rural) is not the most appropriate strategy for the District given the high level of housing growth anticipated around villages which have limited services and facilities in comparison to the towns. Option 1 also fails to have regard to the availability of specific deliverable and developable sites, and therefore is contrary to policies of the Framework.

Representation ID: 3425

OBJECT Mr Graham Logan

Summary:

Not beneficial to people living in, or around, Cotesbach nor an effective way to deliver strategic housing requirements.

Representation ID: 3405

OBJECT Mr John David Edmonds

Summary:

Traffic on A47 would become impossible entering Bushby/Thurnby

Risk of loosing rural land to 'Greater Leicester' which will engulf nearby villages.

Representation ID: 3394

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

Summary:

Bloor Homes Ltd objects to this Option. As acknowledged in the other Options within the NLPD, there is significant scope for future development to be accommodated in the LPUA and Sub-Regional Centre as the most sustainable locations for development in the District. That potential is clearly acknowledged in the suggested settlement hierarchy in the NLPD (as referred to above), but this option does not reflect those opportunities (particularly in respect of the LPUA), and should therefore, be rejected

Representation ID: 3372

OBJECT Mr David Mee represented by Mr David Mee

Summary:

Object

Representation ID: 3349

OBJECT Mrs Elaine Moss

Summary:

The Kibworths have already seen excessive housing development, resulting in a critical situation in respect of Schools/GP's/Road Infrastructure and amenities. The area simply cannot support more housing

Representation ID: 3341

OBJECT Mr David Nance

Summary:

A rural option means increased travel and cost for employees coupled with lack of public transport. Environmentally unfriendly
On a positive note it does give more even distribution across Urban and Large Village setlements but these could be enhanced as these are better served by public transport, infrastructure and offer better employment opportunities

Representation ID: 3326

OBJECT Mrs Rachael Edgley

Summary:

Too much suggested in rural places that have already had housing agreed and could not take this size of development

Representation ID: 3319

OBJECT Elizabeth Marsh

Summary:

By spreading development so thinly, there risks a lack of supporting infrastructure, forcing reliance on private transport to the serious detriment of residents unable to access services.

Representation ID: 3310

OBJECT Mr Ken Moss

Summary:

The Kibworths have already seen excessive housing development, resulting in a critical situation in respect of Schools/GP's/Road Infrastructure and amenities. The area simply cannot support more housing

Representation ID: 3254

SUPPORT Hft represented by Mr. Nigel Simkin

Summary:

We support Option 1: Rural where 60% of the District's housing needs will be met in the urban settlements with 40% met by rural settlements (rural centres and selected rural villages). However, we note that this policy fails to make reference to PDL sites (such as our Client's land at Shangton). Such sites can deliver sustainable housing growth by reusing PDL, thus reducing pressure on other settlements in rural areas and wider greenfield release to deliver housing growth. Please refer to attached letter for more information.

Representation ID: 3253

OBJECT MR Michael Wilcox

Summary:

damages villages character and encourages car use

Representation ID: 3236

OBJECT MR Michael Wilcox

Summary:

Damages village character and encourages more car use

Representation ID: 3208

SUPPORT George Burton ARCHITECTURE AND ECOLOGY Ltd (George Burton)

Summary:

Option 1 is our preferred option, it represents a fair distribution of new housing and maintains the proportion of people living in rural areas whilst allowing for increased growth in the main centres.

Representation ID: 3172

OBJECT Mrs Margaret Wright

Summary:

I do not believe this option would be consistent with the draft vision and objectives as it would alter the nature of our rural areas, destroy large areas of countryside (already under threat from demand for energy production) and remove valuable farm land from production. As far as I can see it would be impossible to adequately deal with the increases in vehicular movements - it would be impossible to persuade rural residents to walk, cycle or use the poor bus services.

Representation ID: 3161

OBJECT Dr Janet Riley

Summary:

Unless can be demonstrated by a housing needs survey, I believe this option places too many houses in rural locations remote from jobs, community facilities and public transport. Kibworth cannot accept so many houses without new community facilities. This option would only add more traffic to the system. It is not a sustainable option.

Representation ID: 3159

OBJECT Mrs Margaret Wright

Summary:

I do not believe this option would be consistent with the draft vision and objectives as it would alter the nature of our rural areas, destroy large areas of countryside (already under threat from demand for energy production) and remove valuable farm land from production. As far as I can see it would be impossible to adequately deal with the increases in vehicular movements - it would be impossible to persuade rural residents to walk, cycle or use the poor bus services.

Representation ID: 3139

SUPPORT Miss Elisabeth Pryke

Summary:

To maintain Great Easton as a selected rural village (51) this is the maximum number of houses we believe that the village could sustain.

Representation ID: 3133

OBJECT Melissa Gillbee

Summary:

too dispersed & local impact

Representation ID: 3105

SUPPORT Mr Alexander Hunt

Summary:

A spread of developments across the district would seem a fairer plan. Other villages such as the Langtons should also be considered to take some development. There should be less development than proposed in Kibworth.

Representation ID: 3101

SUPPORT Miss Alicia Hunt

Summary:

A spread of developments across the district would seem a fairer plan. Other villages such as the Langtons should also be considered to take some development. There should be less development than proposed in Kibworth.

Representation ID: 3097

SUPPORT Miss Georgina Hunt

Summary:

A spread of developments across the district would seem a fairer plan. Other villages such as the Langtons should also be considered to take some development. There should be less development than proposed in Kibworth.

Representation ID: 3088

SUPPORT mr MARK sutton

Summary:

agree

Representation ID: 3084

SUPPORT Mrs Karen Hunt

Summary:

This is a fairer plan with a spread of development across the district. There are other villages such as the Langtons which should also take their share.

Representation ID: 3082

SUPPORT Mr David Hunt

Summary:

This is a fairer proposal as the housing is more spread across the district. Other villages should also be included to take their share such as the Langtons.

Representation ID: 3052

OBJECT Mr Paul Bradfield

Summary:

I object to the 208 houses for Kibworth and 572 houses for Fleckney

Representation ID: 2997

OBJECT Mr Ian Clarke

Summary:

This would seriously effect the rural character and many villages would loose there character and appeal the very reason they have become sustainable communities. I object to this option

Representation ID: 2993

SUPPORT Mrs Susan walter

Summary:

Spread of housing across the villages is better.

Representation ID: 2975

OBJECT Dr Sinead Mooney

Summary:

I object.

Representation ID: 2963

OBJECT Mrs Patricia Horwell

Summary:

Too much valuable pasture and arable land would be used in order to accommodate the increase in housing required in the rural focus plan.

Representation ID: 2953

OBJECT Scott Sims

Summary:

Too many houses for Houghton. Cannot sustain this

Representation ID: 2952

OBJECT mrs sarah sutton

Summary:

Too much development in villages such as Great Bowdnen, which has poor road infrastructure and not enough development in Lutterworth, which has excellent access and links

Representation ID: 2878

SUPPORT 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: 2869

SUPPORT 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: 2851

SUPPORT Mrs Janet Capey

Summary:

Rural areas have to share the burden

Representation ID: 2811

OBJECT Edmund Hunt

Summary:

does not efficiently meet housing targets

Representation ID: 2806

OBJECT BILLESDON Parish Council (Paul Collins)

Summary:

We strongly believe that urban development is the best approach. Billesdon's infrastruture is already stretched and would not support any futher houising other than than that set out in its recent Neighbourhood Plan.

Representation ID: 2801

OBJECT Mr Ian Wilson

Summary:

Lack of employment opportunities in rural locations will lead to further unsustainable transport problems.

Representation ID: 2785

OBJECT BILLESDON Parish Council (Paul Collins)

Summary:

With respect to Billesdon, anything other than a minimal increase in our Neighbourhood Plan housing conclusion would be highly detrimental to the village in many ways - lack of scope for increased infrastructure, no scope for handling increased traffic in the already highly congested village centre, and a "slap on the face" to the whole notion of a conservation area. After the huge amount of work involved in preparing and agreeing our Neighbourhood Plan, any significant changes would highly devalue the importance of this document.

Representation ID: 2772

SUPPORT nicholas fielden

Summary:

Small bespoke housing developments geared precisely to each villages' individual need would deliver the right amount of housing with the village being at the heart of all consultations rather than dictated by greed of big developers.. Would also give scope for greater employment as smaller building companies would be interested. Rural schools would benefit from influx of younger families and older residents could move to housing they desired in their own village. No settlement would be changed beyond recognition as housing spread throughout the district.

Representation ID: 2729

OBJECT Mrs Jean Bird

Summary:

I object to Kibworth's proposed housing developments. Kibworth's infrastructure is totally unable to cope with any more development. High street traffic horrendous, schools overflowing. Environmental concerns - this is a rural community which also includes trees, animals, birds etc. they have no voice so I speak for them, the foxes, the badgers, the buzzards and the prime habitat that would be lost for ever if proposed building goes ahead.

Representation ID: 2722

OBJECT mike webster

Summary:

THERE IS AN UNPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN TEH RURAL SETTLEMENTS, SPECIFICALLY IN MEDBOURNE

Representation ID: 2709

OBJECT mrs angela pearce-smith

Summary:

will overload services

Representation ID: 2707

OBJECT mike webster

Summary:

THERE IS AN UNPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN TEH RURAL SETTLEMENTS, SPECIFICALLY IN MEDBOURNE

Representation ID: 2705

OBJECT mike webster

Summary:

THERE IS AN UNPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN TEH RURAL SETTLEMENTS, SPECIFICALLY IN MEDBOURNE

Representation ID: 2704

OBJECT Mr Thomas Price

Summary:

This option places too much pressure on the selected rural villages.

Representation ID: 2685

OBJECT Mr A Adcock

Summary:

Not beneficial to Cotesbach residents or delivering strategic housing requirements effectively

Representation ID: 2684

SUPPORT Mrs Carole Craig

Summary:

proposed housing should be shared around the district.

Representation ID: 2681

OBJECT A and B Turney Ltd represented by Berrys (Val Coleby)

Summary:

A rural focus to development is inconsistent with the draft Vision. Our preference would be for some growth at the village of Foxton which provides for the incremental and sustainable growth of the village to support its services and facilitates in rebalance its age profile, accordance with the size and scale of the village. Options 2 to 9 are therefore preferable.

Representation ID: 2654

OBJECT Mr David Jones

Summary:

I object as this would not allow for a Lutterworth eastern relief road funded by a Lutterworth SDA.

Representation ID: 2649

OBJECT FLECKNEY Parish Council (Mr J Flower)

Summary:

This option is not supported because it would focus development in rural centres and rural villages which are least able to sustain the numbers of dwellings proposed.

Representation ID: 2630

COMMENT David Wilson Homes East Midlands (Helen Bareford)

Summary:

The provision of 208 homes in Kibworth is welcomed however is too low for the plan period. The combined settlement is identified as the largest Rural Centre capable of sustaining new development to provide a rural focus. Kibworth is a highly sustainable location with a good range of services and facilities. Proposed housing figures for the Kibworths should be increased to reflect its position in the Hierarchy and to allow the Draft Vision of a rural focus to be achieved. 208 dwellings should be seen as a minimum figure.
The provision of 59 homes in Billesdon is supported.

Representation ID: 2617

OBJECT MRS PAT FOOTMAN

Summary:

.

Representation ID: 2604

SUPPORT Mrs Marie Galton

Summary:

This option would help to ensure key services and facilities such a rural schools, shops and pubs remain viable and available to everyone living in the community.

Representation ID: 2592

SUPPORT Mr Alec Brewin

Summary:

Better to spread the whole housing load over whole area

Representation ID: 2565

OBJECT Hugh Woolley

Summary:

I object

Representation ID: 2562

OBJECT Mr Richard .J. Sutton

Summary:

Significant growth in rural areas cannot be supported by the current infrastructure and will be detrimental to the whole area

Representation ID: 2553

OBJECT Mr Andrew Hamilton

Summary:

Object!

Representation ID: 2549

OBJECT Mr Andrew Hamilton

Summary:

Object!

Representation ID: 2542

OBJECT Mr Andrew Hamilton

Summary:

Object!

Representation ID: 2530

OBJECT Mrs Rachael Morris

Summary:

I am opposed to any significant large scale development in Kibworth, the village infrastructure, schools, doctors, roads etc simply can't cope with further demand

Representation ID: 2524

SUPPORT Miss J Moffat

Summary:

Balanced share throughout the district.

Representation ID: 2417

OBJECT Mr Richard Wayman

Summary:

Not the best option

Representation ID: 2415

SUPPORT Mrs Iris Norman

Summary:

Support

Representation ID: 2399

OBJECT Mrs Pam Edmonds

Summary:

Too many villages with NO employment opportunities and lack of infrastructure

Representation ID: 2388

OBJECT Ms Caroline Pick

Summary:

Object

Representation ID: 2379

OBJECT Ms Caroline Pick

Summary:

Object

Representation ID: 2360

OBJECT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

Too much distribution in rural villages will not provide adequate infrastructure

Representation ID: 2359

OBJECT Mr Ian Harris

Summary:

Sprawl should be restricted and in-filling between villages and towns/Leicester should be avoided.

Representation ID: 2313

OBJECT Mr Colin Archard

Summary:

Objection

Representation ID: 2311

OBJECT Mrs Wendy Murrell

Summary:

Insufficient infrastructure to cope with this increase in housing in rural areas

Representation ID: 2307

OBJECT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

Neighbourhood Plans are being encouraged across the district and should be the mechanism by which the size of development in rural villages is decided. The NDP undergoes rigorous consultation and reflects the needs and concerns of the community. Development such as is proposed will not bring large scale infrastructure benefits to villages that already find schools and community facilities stretched to capacity.

Representation ID: 2304

OBJECT Mrs Shiela Carlton

Summary:

I object to the level of housing development suggested for villages at 40% of total residual housing requirement.

Representation ID: 2294

SUPPORT Mr Michael Brooks

Summary:

Spreads the develments more evenly across the county.

Representation ID: 2274

OBJECT Dr Jon Davies

Summary:

Does not maintain the overall rural character of the district and would adversely impact the district's landscape and natural characteristics.

Representation ID: 2257

SUPPORT Mrs Susan Terrington

Summary:

Good spread of development across the county

Representation ID: 2248

OBJECT Mr Peter Francis

Summary:

This puts pressure on existing rural locations and does nothing for increased infrastructure or employment needs.

Representation ID: 2236

SUPPORT mr Colin Griffiths

Summary:

Good Option for spreading the distribution, will help to maintain separation areas in other areas.

Representation ID: 2235

OBJECT Mrs Louise Pilkington

Summary:

Cuts in public funding have reduced the District and County's ability to provide public services across the board and particularly in rural areas. This is unlikely to change in the near future.The district's inability to provide crucial services such as education, employment, health care, childcare and most significantly public transport in rural settlements makes this amount of new development (40% in rural areas) unsustainable and not viable.

Representation ID: 2214

SUPPORT Mr Nigel Garner

Summary:

This supports rural communities

Representation ID: 2211

OBJECT Prof. Penelope Allison

Summary:

This number of houses in Houghton-on-the-Hill is not sustainable in this rural village with poor transport, lack of facilities and limited viable local employment.

Representation ID: 2197

OBJECT Miss Anita Davies

Summary:

Expanding villages like Houghton on the Hill, with very limited employment opportunity, will increase car journeys and therefore traffic on already dangerously congested unsuitable rural roads. Road infrastructure and public transport are already glaringly inadequate

Representation ID: 2191

SUPPORT K Patel

Summary:

Good option to spread new developments over many areas

Representation ID: 2189

OBJECT K Patel

Summary:

Object

Representation ID: 2164

OBJECT mr John Goldby

Summary:

the bulk of new housing needs to be in urban areas, where schools, doctors and social needs can be looked after.

Representation ID: 2160

OBJECT Mr Peter Hales

Summary:

Placing such a large number of housing in rural villages with little or no public transport has no reality for sustainability.

Representation ID: 2157

OBJECT Mr Peter Hales

Summary:

Such a large number in rural villages often those with no public transport

Representation ID: 2153

OBJECT mrs linda atkinson

Summary:

Scraptoft particularly, and Thurnby/Bushby have had more than fair share of housing in recent times, and area of separation ruled by inspector should be upheld.

Representation ID: 2122

OBJECT Consultant Simon Thodey

Summary:

Housing should be in the rural centres where there is more infrastructure

Representation ID: 2103

OBJECT Mr Michael Ward

Summary:

Loss of character and resource problems

Representation ID: 2088

OBJECT Mr David Birch

Summary:

Growth spread through the villages won't be sufficient to result in increase in services in those villages so will increase traffic flows out of villages on narrow country roads making them much more hazardous, especially for the rapidly increasing number of cyclists

Representation ID: 2068

OBJECT Mr RON YOUNG

Summary:

Lack of infrastructure

Representation ID: 2066

OBJECT Mrs Carol Birch

Summary:

By spreading the housing throughout the district there will be pressure on infrastructure everywhere eg school places, transport, shops and services, but no one settlement would get enough 106 money to meet their needs.

Representation ID: 2057

OBJECT Mr Simon Cook

Summary:

The infrastructure and amenities are simply not there to support any further development in areas such as Thurnby/Scraptoft and Bushby which has already met most of it's quota for the next 30 years from the last plan.

Representation ID: 2005

OBJECT Mr Sam Weller

Summary:

Significant growth in rural areas cannot be supported by the existing infrastructure and would ruin the whole district

Representation ID: 1975

OBJECT Mr Mark Fitt

Summary:

too much rural

Representation ID: 1961

OBJECT MRS JANE FAIRCLIFFE

Summary:

not the best option

Representation ID: 1941

OBJECT FOXTON Parish Council (Mrs A Hall)

Summary:

Object to 1. This option would result in serious strain on village resources and loss of rural character

Representation ID: 1930

OBJECT Mr Ian Ball

Summary:

Object to Option 1: Bits all over the place no good as no infrastructure to cope.

Representation ID: 1918

SUPPORT Mr Peter Harding

Summary:

More sharing of additional housing

Representation ID: 1912

SUPPORT haydn Gopsill

Summary:

This option allows for the reasonable distribution throughout Leicestershire.

Representation ID: 1892

SUPPORT Mr Sam Hudson

Summary:

Good option to spread new developments over many areas

Representation ID: 1880

OBJECT mr Frank Cooper

Summary:

This option suggests that some additional 1900 home occupiers will travel along the A6 mainly on working days;given that planning permission for over 1000 homes north of M. Harborough has already been approved with a further 1000 plus at Lubenham , the A6 particularly at Kibworth will become an enormous bottle neck and e.u. air quality levels will be exceeded. This will throw up legal action by many parties. Side issues are that both school and health centres are at max capacity adding further to traffic congestion and poorer air quality to the kibworths.

Representation ID: 1875

SUPPORT Miss Laura Hudson

Summary:

Good option, spreads lad of development over all areas

Representation ID: 1864

SUPPORT Mrs Deborah Hudson

Summary:

Good option to spread new housing over lots of different areas

Representation ID: 1854

OBJECT Mr Bill Barrie

Summary:

We should not be building significant numbers of new houses in rural villages where there is inadequate public transport, and where there is no local school. This simply increases road traffic and is not "sustainable development".

Representation ID: 1852

OBJECT Mrs Jennifer Sandars

Summary:

Lack of facilities, employment and transport would greatly increase car travel on minor roads to areas of employment, doctors surgeries, shops and leisure facilities.

Representation ID: 1826

SUPPORT Mrs Penelope Fielden

Summary:

No overload on any one area plus need for new housing in more rural areas for local schooling to continue

Representation ID: 1788

SUPPORT Robin Shakespeare

Summary:

Preserves rural outlooks and nature of District, without unduly straining individual villages or local infrastructure.

Representation ID: 1787

OBJECT Mr Christopher Gladman

Summary:

This option proposes an unsustainable increase for Kibworth which does not have infrastructure capacity to support such development. Kibworth has already taken more than its fair share of additional housing.

Representation ID: 1767

SUPPORT Mr Donald Urquhart

Summary:

Although not ideal, this proposal offers a fairer distribution of develpment.

Representation ID: 1750

OBJECT mr chris faircliffe

Summary:

object

Representation ID: 1737

SUPPORT Mr Michael Lord

Summary:

Support Rural Focus because villages need the stimulus of small amounts of new housing.

Representation ID: 1705

OBJECT HOUGHTON ON THE HILL Parish Council (Mrs Ann E. Sleath)

Summary:

Traffic problems, flow and parking already very bad in Main Street.

Representation ID: 1693

OBJECT Mr Alan Mitchell

Summary:

I do not agree

Representation ID: 1679

OBJECT LUTTERWORTH TOWN COUNCIL Parish Council (Andrew Ellis)

Summary:

Lutterworth Town Council objects to this option on the basis that the town will not receive the correct level of infrastructure support if development is accepted in a piecemeal approach.

Representation ID: 1668

SUPPORT Mr James Hudson

Summary:

Support as spreads the load of new housing across all areas and help keep alive smaller residential areas

Representation ID: 1659

OBJECT Ms Sarah Ramsay

Summary:

We do not have the infrastructure in place

Representation ID: 1649

OBJECT Ms Hazel Newitt

Summary:

The areas of Scraptoft, Thurnby and Bushby have had a great deal of developement already and the road network and local infrastructure could not sustain this option

Representation ID: 1639

OBJECT Mr philip colver

Summary:

I believe Market Harborough has already outgrown the town and is in danger of becoming a massive housing estate

Representation ID: 1619

OBJECT Miss Annali Ruddock-Brown

Summary:

A6 incapable of taking more traffic.
Insufficient school places.

Representation ID: 1574

OBJECT mr Peter Mellalieu

Summary:

MH Homeowner

Representation ID: 1565

OBJECT Mr Peter Coombs

Summary:

scraptoft, Thurnby and Bushby have already suffered a hugely disproportionate amount of new developments in recent years, with no improvement in facilities. 8 of the 9 options include even more development in these villages!!

Representation ID: 1552

OBJECT mrs Emma Andrew

Summary:

Far too many houses in Fleckney in this proposal. The village has tiny roads and the proposal to build on Arnesby road and Kilby road is ridiculous. Both of these roads are too narrow with parked cars and regularly cause congestion around the village. It just takes one large vehicle on the High Street to cause chaos. The village needs new houses but this is too many.

Representation ID: 1547

SUPPORT Mr Mohamed Master

Summary:

ALL FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS SHOULD BE MOVED TO RURAL AREAS OR NEAR THE MOTORWAY -

LUTTERWORTH NEEDS MORE DEVELOPMENT -

Representation ID: 1538

SUPPORT Mr Mohamed Master

Summary:

I strongly believe that you should be developing rural areas rather than putting more pressure on villages like scraptoft - you are ruining our village and we will take this fight to the High Court if necessary

Representation ID: 1521

SUPPORT Mr Harjit Dosanjh

Summary:

Scraptoft and Thurnby are currently having homes built and currently have permission to build more. Roads are currently gridlock and have to much traffic and will not cope as it is other areas can handle this

Representation ID: 1504

OBJECT Mrs Diane Miles

Summary:

114 houses in Great Bowden would result in increased traffic and parking problems in a village where parking on pavements impedes pedestrians. Increased traffic would also detract from the ambiance of the village and increase the possibility of accidents from speeding cars.
The village school has recently been extended and a larger population would negate the benefits of increased classroom space.

Representation ID: 1483

SUPPORT Ms Shaveen Akhtar

Summary:

Some rural areas in Harborough are almost derelict and need revitalising.

Representation ID: 1472

SUPPORT Robin Childs

Summary:

good plan

Representation ID: 1460

SUPPORT Robin Childs

Summary:

minimum impact of existing services

Representation ID: 1443

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

Summary:

Comment - The recognition that rural communities require housing growth is welcomed. However the figures are arbitrary and do not reflect evidence of the actual amount of development required in each community to deliver sustainable villages, including whether development is required below Selected Villages. As outlined in the representations concerning the Harborough Settlement Hierarchy, the PPG advocates an evidence-led approach to distributing development and the Rural Productivity Plan proactively facilitates the incremental expansion of any village in England.

Representation ID: 1426

OBJECT CLAYBROOKE PARVA Parish Council (Maurice C Howell)

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 1395

OBJECT Mr Richard Chambers

Summary:

This will put too much demand on small rural settlements. Fleckney does not have the vehicular access infrastructure to accommodate the proposed new houses and industry which will cause problems with through traffic for neighbouring towns, especially Kibworth.

Representation ID: 1389

OBJECT Mr Alex Boddy

Summary:

I think the increase in accommodation away from areas of employment will have a negative impact on traffic around the district and many rural centres will not be able to support the increase in population with their current services

Representation ID: 1382

OBJECT BURTON OVERY Parish Council (Mrs Kate Barker)

Summary:

Great Glen and Kibworth have already taken more housing than is sustainable. Schools, doctor's surgeries and roads are bursting at the seams. There is a knock on effect for all the surrounding villages which use the services in these rural centres. Fleckney is served by rural roads which do not have the capacity to take the huge increase in traffic which will result.

Representation ID: 1371

SUPPORT Mr James O'Hare

Summary:

Support Option 1

Representation ID: 1362

OBJECT Mr John Coombs

Summary:

Local amenities (schools, doctors, roads, parking, leisure facilities) are stretched all over the district. I think we need to have at least 1 SDA (and preferably 2) to provide new facilities not only to serve the new SDA but also to take the overspill from surrounding areas, so it is critical that the capacity of the new amenities is sufficient to do this role (this may be difficult for developers).

Representation ID: 1337

OBJECT Mrs Mary Moore

Summary:

Object

Representation ID: 1303

OBJECT Professor Alan Wells

Summary:

Loss of rural habitat and overloading of resources and facilities in rural villages would follow from a rural focus of housing development. Road infrastructure is ill suited to support this approach unless high cost infrastructure is included and costed for in this scenario. Public transport inadequate to service this level of development.

Representation ID: 1293

OBJECT Mrs Glenise McBean

Summary:

Object to Option 1

Representation ID: 1281

SUPPORT Mr Barry Barker

Summary:

Ok

Representation ID: 1274

OBJECT KIBWORTH HARCOURT Parish Council (Dr Kevin Feltham)

Summary:

Councillors of Kibworth Harcourt Prish Council are of the view that because there is no current Housing Needs Assessment, no Community Infrastructure Plan in place and no review of the impact of existing developemnts, the Parish Council cannot support any option that includes housing for the Kibworths.

Representation ID: 1263

SUPPORT Rev. Brian Thompson

Summary:

This seems to provide the best long term provision of housing which in turn will generate other local facilities such as local employment opportunities, thus avoiding the use of much local traffic on the roads. The population would be able to enjoy a good life with a balanced comtent of home, recreation and work opportunities.

Representation ID: 1260

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

Summary:

This option whereby a more dispersed, rurally focused approach is favoured would respond well to market demand which would aid deliverability. it would avoid over-reliance on large Sustainable Urban Extensions which have large, expensive infrastructure requirements and meet the Government's aim of significantly boosting housing delivery in the short term.

Representation ID: 1246

OBJECT Mrs Dorothy Ward

Summary:

Strain on resources, loss of character. Put housing where the infrastructure is.

Representation ID: 1211

SUPPORT mr philip bothwell

Summary:

Of all the options, this gives the most equitable distribution of housing to all towns/villages and therefore the lowest pressure on existing infrastructure whilst represnentin the best use of land available within the SHLAA.

Representation ID: 1178

OBJECT Mr Ian Pilon

Summary:

Scraptoft has already undertaken several developments and has at least 2 waiting to start.Scraptoft,Thurnby and Bushby are losing their identity. All roads in the area are continually congested.

Representation ID: 1133

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

Summary:

Provision of 208 dwellings in Kibworth is welcomed but is too low and does not fully reflect its position in the settlement hierarchy ie largest Rural Centre (The Kibworths). The combined settlement enjoys a good range of facilities and services and is a very sustainable location. As such a higher level of housing provision is warranted over the Plan period.

Representation ID: 1097

OBJECT SWINFORD Parish Council (Katherine Clarke)

Summary:

Swinford does not support the large number of houses proposed

Representation ID: 1083

OBJECT Mr Peter Lutman

Summary:

Far too many houses in rural villages. Poor public transport limiting commuting by those living in affordable housing. Village roads already congested and unsafe will become worse

Representation ID: 1066

SUPPORT Maxine Kempster

Summary:

I consider that local villages would benefit from additional housing and relive the pressure on Market Harborough. Homes would need to be affordable.

Representation ID: 1054

OBJECT Tony Hipgrave

Summary:

Many of the identified villages already have parking, road safety, schooling and other infrastructural issues before any further development occurs. The effect of sharing the numbers whilst adding a limited set of employment sites will be to add to this traffic-related street across the district. Anything which connects housing and employment sites more directly AND offers infrastructural changes related to road safety, traffic management etc. Will always be preferable to a wider scattering.

Representation ID: 1051

SUPPORT Mr Paul Copson

Summary:

This would appear to be the most fair allocation of housing. All areas including some of the smaller villages would take a proportion of the homes needed. No area would then be subjected to excessive and unsustainable developments which bring excessive pressure on current infrastructure including road networks. Villages would retain their rural identity and community.

Representation ID: 1036

SUPPORT Mr John Rowley

Summary:

It is important to provide affordable housing in all the rural villages and this plan can go someway to providing that need.

Representation ID: 1032

OBJECT Mr John Biggin

Summary:

Expanding villages where there is no emplyment will only lead to more car jouneys and increased traffic on dangerous rural roads.
Our rural landscape must be protected for future generations to enjoy.

Representation ID: 1020

OBJECT KIBWORTH HARCOURT Parish Council (Dr Kevin Feltham)

Summary:

Premature level of housing and employment has been included for the Kibworths; the draft Neighbourhood Plan will best be able to provide relevant policies on housing needs for the settlement. Where is an up to date housing needs assessment? Where is an up to date assessment of community wellbeing? The primary school is full, both GP surgeries are bursting. Kibworth Harcourt has almost doubled in size without facilities such as a food store or meeting place. Access onto the A6 is very poor at peak periods. Air quality is getting worse due to traffic.

Representation ID: 990

OBJECT Market Harborough Civic Society (Bernard Bowen)

Summary:

While on the face of it this seems to be an equitable distribution, where most location bear the pain, Market Harborough and Kibworth have already had large developments built and more have been approved. which is too much.

Representation ID: 981

OBJECT Mr Alastair Willis

Summary:

This seems to be an equitable distribution where most locations share the 'pain'. Many villages need more affordable homes, and increases in population to support shops, pubs, schools etc. But Market Harborough and Kibworth have already had large developments built and more plans approved. ie a high proportion of the 5813 'achieved' so far.

Representation ID: 975

OBJECT Mrs Jan Butcher

Summary:

Rural villages must be protected.

Representation ID: 961

OBJECT Claybrooke Magna Parish Council (Mrs J P Butcher)

Summary:

See text submitted for option 3 - this comment applies to all options 1 to 9 inclusive:

BUT under all options, Harborough seems to have come out way in front in terms of fewer new builds per head than others on average. Lutterworth is hit hard by all options. The perception by local residents is that is that the options are skewed to favour MK over Lutterworth. This issue need reviewed and more proportional development options across HDC area worked up. The presumption of development at Magna Park is unacceptable and biased. No change option must be properly explored - reasons against expansion as per Core Strategy still stand

Representation ID: 953

SUPPORT Mr Paul Johnson

Summary:

As set out in previous response - this is the most flexible option that will help support and sustain the vitality and viability of existing communities, allowing them to adapt, grow and survive. This approach will also deliver housing on the ground, not just and allocation or number in a plan. Strategic sites are notoriously slow to assemble and deliver housing and will leave the village to become socially biased and will price many out of the rural areas unless allowed to organically grow and develop.

Representation ID: 946

SUPPORT Mr Paul Johnson

Summary:

This is the most suitable option and will deliver housing, whilst providing choice in the housing market and sustaining communities and local level services. Other options will deliver less housing in the short, medium term and will result in commuter villages with ever rising house prices - as such, this option is to be supported.

Representation ID: 930

OBJECT Mr Richard Painter

Summary:

Lutterworth does not need any more expansion of housing or to magna park the area in my opinion can not sustain this proposed growth on the country side infastructure and community we have all must full employment now adding more warehouses would not make any changes to the people living here now or in the future people that would buy any new housing in the area already have employment on would assume

Representation ID: 903

OBJECT Mr Robert Mitchell

Summary:

I am against extensive development in rural areas. Some housing in rural areas, yes. But not large amounts. Be proportional

Representation ID: 813

OBJECT Mrs Alison Oldridge

Summary:

I think Kibworth has already received its fair share of new housing in recent years both with the new development and with infilling.

Representation ID: 803

OBJECT Mrs Susan Hamilton-Martin

Summary:

Kibworth has tripled in size in the last 30 years.The infrastructure is already at bursting point. With 2 doctors surgeries covering the village and surrounding villages from out dated and unfit premises and planning permission for new one turned down. Just 1 school with children coming in their final school years traveling out of the village to continue their education. The A6, already worryingly busy, making access out of the village at times incredibly difficult and no Bypass planned. Adding to this would cause chaos and turn us from an picturesque historical village to an unattractive town.

Representation ID: 684

OBJECT TUR LANGTON Parish Council (Alison Gibson)

Summary:

Do not like this option

Representation ID: 649

OBJECT Market Harborough Civic Society (Bernard Bowen)

Summary:

Object Too many houses would have to be accomodated in Market Harbough

Representation ID: 647

OBJECT Mr Raymond Godfrey

Summary:

This option will increase traffic on relatively dangerous and poorly maintained rural roads. Road maintenance, winter gritting and snow clearance would therefore need to be improved at significant cost to the council.
More and longer journeys to work and schools is ecologically unsound. Poor bus services mean that the use of cars will be essential.
Few of the villages have the infrastructure to absorb additional housing.

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

Powered by OpusConsult